New save the planet scheme: ‘cocktail geoengineering’

Could ‘cocktail geoengineering’ save the climate?

From the CARNEGIE INSTITUTION FOR SCIENCE

Geoengineering is a catch-all term that refers to various theoretical ideas for altering Earth’s energy balance to combat climate change. New research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical Research Lettersinvestigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas not only cause the Earth to get hotter, they also affect weather patterns around the world. Management approaches need to address both warming and changes in the amount of rainfall and other forms of precipitation.

So-called solar geoengineering aims to cool the planet by deflecting some of the Sun’s incoming rays. Ideas for accomplishing this include the dispersion of light-scattering particles in the upper atmosphere, which would mimic the cooling effect of major volcanic eruptions.

However, climate-modeling studies have shown that while this scattering of sunlight should reduce the warming caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would tend to reduce rainfall and other types of precipitation less than would be optimal.

Another approach involves thinning of high cirrus clouds, which are involved in regulating the amount of heat that escapes from the planet to outer space. This would also reduce warming, but would not correct the increase in precipitation caused by global warming.

One method reduces rain too much. Another method reduces rain too little.

This is where the theoretical cocktail shaker gets deployed.

New research from an international team of atmospheric scientists investigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases. CREDIT Illustration courtesy of Ken Caldeira. Earth image courtesy of NASA.

The team–which includes Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira, Long Cao and Lei Duan of Zhejiang University, and Govindasamy Bala of the Indian Institute of Science–used models to simulate what would happen if sunlight were scattered by particles at the same time as the cirrus clouds were thinned. They wanted to understand how effective this combined set of tools would be at reversing climate change, both globally and regionally.

“As far as I know, this is the first study to try to model using two different geoengineering approaches simultaneously to try to improve the overall fit of the technology,” Caldeira explained.

The good news is that their simulations showed that if both methods are deployed in concert, it would decrease warming to pre-industrial levels, as desired, and on a global level rainfall would also stay at pre-industrial levels. But the bad news is that while global average climate was largely restored, substantial differences remained locally, with some areas getting much wetter and other areas getting much drier.

“The same amount of rain fell around the globe in our models, but it fell in different places, which could create a big mismatch between what our economic infrastructure expects and what it will get,” Caldeira added. “More complicated geoengineering solutions would likely do a bit better, but the best solution is simply to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

Caldeira said that the international collaboration of scientists (including scientists from China and India) undertook this research as part of a broader effort aimed at understanding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of proposed strategies for reducing climate change and its impacts.

###

The Carnegie Institution for Science is a private, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with six research departments throughout the U.S. Since its founding in 1902, the Carnegie Institution has been a pioneering force in basic scientific research. Carnegie scientists are leaders in plant biology, developmental biology, astronomy, materials science, global ecology, and Earth and planetary science.

Advertisements

122 thoughts on “New save the planet scheme: ‘cocktail geoengineering’

    • Geoengineering is a win-win for developing countries. Just a little bit less rain than normal, or a bit colder, or more cloudy or whatever…and they can claim to be ruined by man-made climate changes, real ones, this time around. Then they claim a few hundred billion dollars per year in compensation. No doubt they are licking their mouths in anticipation.

      • Exactly, if the UNFCCC delegates can’t change the Science why not artificially change the global climate to create a real disaster.

        Why aren’t there UN restrictions on ANY deligate nation’s climate hack attempts without global UN approval?

        Obvious answer, there isn’t a global Science Agency independent of political influence.

        The tech is far beyond logical usage at this point and the UN is a pure process failure by design!

    • They are wasting treasure aplenty at the CSIRO and the F#@k Facts media and may even be drinking a right kool ade cocktail.

      I refer to Peter Hannam being at it again this morning (Oz time) warning about frequent, rampant El Ninos destroying the planet etc. I went for quick look for the word ‘model’ but could not see in in Hannam’s article so went to his reference and found:-

      “Here, by analysing climate models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project’s Phase 5 (CMIP5; ref. 17) under a most likely emission scenario1,2, we demonstrate that extreme El Niño frequency increases linearly with the GMT towards a doubling at 1.5 ◦ C warming.”

      Hasso!

      By analysing the paper using a special non-anal retentive technique I conclude that the linearity in El Nino return frequency increase might be more to do with the simplistic nature of the models. I further conclude that the slope of the response line is itself linearly related to the quantity of kool ade consumed although the possibility of a hyperbolic response is not discounted.

    • And more importantly the mountains of lives sacrificed on the altar of the false god of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, ie Newspeak for Communism.

      The towers of human skulls of Jenghiz Khan are as molehills compared to the death and destruction inflicted by the Horsemen of the Green Apocalypse.

      Or in the case of the former IPCC chairthing, Whoresman.

    • When you add the dollars wasted on renewable fuels without results the picture is even worse. Has the DOE uncovered any significant breakthrough?

    • A cocktail of geoengineering? When each of the methods has consequences, usually bad, it makes sense to do them all and truly not know how the planet will be screwed up. Their models are so bad, I would not want to depend on anything they say.

    • Absolutely a waste. There is no known model of our globe that is accurate, so how in the world can we expect that any of their simulations are valid. In fact, my guess is that there is better than 50% chance that the “unintended” consequences will be much worse than doing nothing at all.
      Our sun is dominant and if they cannot model the sun’s affect on our earth correctly, they may all of a sudden find that we are in the midst of a 60-year global cooling crisis that is made worse by anything that they put in our atmosphere and what they do screws up our rain and all of a sudden the entire globe is in a water crisis, failing crops, famine, and millions of people dying around the world.
      Who would be the team to review, approve, control, monitor, and understand what these “do-gooders” think they are doing.

    • Thanks for that. It’s nice to hear some positive views for a change on man’s impact on the world.

    • Seems to me that people looking this hard for a “problem” to solve ought to have their resources redirected.

      • Agreed.
        As a grad student I worked on what I still consider to be a promising line of research for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases. Funding was tight, and my supervisor didn’t get tenure as a result of insufficient funding. About a decade later I read a review of the specific topic, where our work was cited as “perhaps not getting the attention that it deserved”. I do feel bitter when I see what gets funded in the name of global warming.

  1. so man made climate change is bad unless ……..
    the religion_of_temps decides man needs to alter the climate..

  2. They can’t tell me how much it’s going to rain on me next week, and that’s with the GFS, ECMWF, Canadian, Japanese, NAVGEMS, and who knows what other weather models they’ve got. What makes them think they know enough to put the right amount of Gin and Vermouth in the atmospheric cocktail shaker?

    The only good thing about this is that they’re going to have to live with the results of their mistakes, just like the rest of us.

    • the only result is that other people pay their mortgages – and they are happy to live with that

    • The fun bit about geoengineering is the fast ramp up and down. Stick a sunshade out at L1 and you can adjust coverage by the hour. At that point, we could adjust within our known prediction horizon.

    • It’s absolute foolishness to apply geo-engineering procedures on a natural condition that man didn’t make.

      However, the procedures included in the “fix” will undoubtedly push the planet in one direction or the other.

      These people should be required to post bonding equivalent to the damages they may cause, which could be huge!

      There should also be laws specifically spelling out the penalties applied when they screw up.

      • But some geo-engineering fixes, like fertilizing the Gulf of Alaska with iron oxide, have worked—and would not cause harm, or not much, if they didn’t work.

      • What’s your definition of “worked”, Roger?

        Is the warming due to CO2? If not, then the effort is futile–the Earth is much too big to control and any efforts could have dangerous side effects.

        The prescription for the Earth is the same as the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

        Man has invented a problem and in their folly think they can fix it, whatever that is.

  3. As if the models explain the current climate well enough to predict what changes will do. Plus, the end of the Little Ice Age was not all that desirable a climate.

    • “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent his Sunday afternoon smoking meats and doing a Facebook Live from his backyard in Palo Alto, California. While waiting for his brisket to slow cook, he delivered an admonition to Elon Musk, his fellow Silicon Valley billionaire, and others who sound alarm bells over artificial intelligence posing a threat to our safety and well-being.”

      Enjoying one last brisket before he gives up beef for the climate cause?

      • I would doubt that he would give up anything. He has enough money to buy whatever indulgences are required to offset any of his little sins.

  4. More grant money wasted on models that are inherently incapable because of computational intractability. See my Models guest post for details.

    • The main problem with the models is that they were selected or tuned to hindcast the past, especially the rapid warming from 1975 to 2005, without considering that about .2 degree C of that warming was caused by an upswing of multidecadal oscillations. If the feedbacks are tuned to have resulted in .2 degree C less warming during that time in the models, then I suspect they will even stop predicting the tropical upper tropospheric hotspot that doesn’t exist.

    • Ristvan, perhaps we are looking at a modelling method that can “fix” the problem. Just keep adding geoengineering corrections to models until the projections actually match reality.

      Of course it won’t model what is actually happening to the earth’s climate, but then they never did.

      • As the old Proffessor said to the young research student;
        When you can clearly demonstrate to me that you can control a Volcano then come back and we will discuss your ideas for controlling the Climate.

  5. Since the problem and the solution seem to be based on invalidated computer models, they seem to be a perfect match for one another. In the real world I think we’ll do fine with any number of different religious practices that are intended to control the weather. I think we should avoid human sacrifice, though many environmentalists seem in favor. Dance, prayer, art projects, medidation, recreational drug use… there are many traditional ways we can control that weather that are equally effective and far less risky compared to geoengineering.

  6. From the article: “Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas not only cause the Earth to get hotter, they also affect weather patterns around the world.”

    They couldn’t prove those statements if their lives depended on it.

    They need to preface their study with the phrase: If CAGW is real, then. . . Since there is no evidence that CAGW is real, they need to insert this disclaimer.

      • And after Jesus said these words, the sun was darkened for about 3 hours. (Luke 23:44,45)

        Extend that time from 3 hours to 3 or more days, and that should cool the earth a bit!

  7. GeoEngineering – be scared. Be very, very scared. If these nuts get their way we will be heading for the next Ice-age faster than you can say “Bobs your Aunty”.

  8. From the CARNEGIE INSTITUTION FOR SCIENCE BS

    [excerpt from the above, with comments in CAPS]:

    “Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas not only cause the Earth to get hotter (NOT MUCH, IF AT ALL), they also affect weather patterns around the world (UNPROVEN NONSENSE). Management approaches need to address both warming and changes in the amount of rainfall and other forms of precipitation.” (MORE UNPROVEN NONSENSE)

    [end of excerpt]

    There is no REAL global warming crisis – it is a fiction. Similarly, allegations of wilder weather caused by increased atmospheric CO2 are false. So the whole paper fails because it is based on falsehoods.

    The real crisis that faces this planet is that we are nearing the end of ~10,000 year interglacial, between Ice Ages that typically last 100,000 years. Now that may necessitate some serious geo-engineering, unless we are comfortable with a mile of ice over our northern cities (there goes the neighbourhood!).

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/26/claim-why-ice-ages-occur-every-100000-years/comment-page-1/#comment-2328336

    Some irony here:

    Much-maligned “carbon”, in the form of carbon black (powder) sprinkled on the ice sheet, could save all of us from the next Continental Ice Age.

    This would be the final rebuttal of the scoundrels and imbeciles who have tried to incite widespread fear of manmade global warming.
    ________________________

    I wrote the following on this subject on 18Dec2014, posted on Icecap.us:

    On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
    [excerpt]

    Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.

    More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.

    Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.

    As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. :-)

    Best, Allan

    • Allan

      What amazes me is that just at the very moment in history, when atmospheric CO2 hit absolute rock bottom, man rocked up, and discovered fire, and industrialisation, thereby helping to increase atmospheric CO2 to healthier levels.

      Were I religious, I would call that a miracle. But I’m not, so I just think it’s the most amazing coincidence the planet has ever witnessed.

      • Quite so HotScot, and then there is plastic. Mankind’s lasting legacy may just be the production of vast amounts of plastic. How else was plastic going to find its way into the world?

      • And all that old carbon stored there JUST FOR US to use when we became clever enough.

        A religious person would be DUTY BOUND to use it to the fullest potential.

        That is what HE planned. !!

    • The first question to be answered is: is the Earth going to be warmer in the long term, going to be more or less stable in temperature, or will the Earth be cooling? Before that question is answered no filling in of any geo engineering can be given.

      • Any geologist worth his salt will say the Earth will be cooling. When is the question.

        It wasn’t that long ago that ice was the predominant rock type covering North American.

  9. Using a bit of Schroders cat logic, if temperatures are recorded automatically and there is no one there to witness the temperature how do we know the reorded temperatures are correct?

    • Who knows? Maybe the creationists are right and the earth was created around 6,000 years ago. The creator did a darn good job too, He made it look like it has been here for billions of years. Now THAT’s attention to detail.

    • In my universe, the earth is trending cooler. In other’s, it is trending warmer. It all depends on where your stream of consciousness takes you.

    • They call it GEOENGINEERING. Or the KNOB, whichever will convince the public to accept their theories.

      It scares the crap out of me.

  10. Brilliant! Sarcasm intended. Item 1: The earth’s climate is the pure essence of a chaotic system, in the mathematical sense. Item 2: Some scientists grossly overestimate our ability to understand the true workings of worldwide weather. Combine items one and two. What do you get? A recipe for disaster if any sort of “geoengineering” is attempted on a large scale. Be very afraid!

  11. I am going to do my part by having a couple of cocktails to help me forget I read this.

      • Someone should develop a computer game or board game whose “dice” is a small smart tablet that downloads actual current, recent, and archived meteorological data in real time for “modeling” the game’s outcome. Sides taken could be skeptics, catastrophists, luke-warmists, sheepists, etc.

        –Oh, that’s right. Actual archived data are lost in landfills.

  12. New research from an international team of atmospheric scientists published by Geophysical Research Lettersinvestigates for the first time the possibility of using a “cocktail” of geoengineering tools to reduce changes in both temperature and precipitation caused by atmospheric greenhouse gases.

    Not again.

    Don’t these people have any shame? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to make sure the “caused by yada yada” part of the project was verified before they start messing with the atmosphere? Who are these loons?

    Each of them needs to be put on a terrorist watch list. They can make up all the scary stories they want, I don’t really care, but I live here and they don’t have permission to start messing with the environment.

    • Bartleby

      +++++++ (add in whatever score you want)

      In the meantime they will insist on terrifying everyone with “our grandchildrens future is in our hands” whilst casually fiddling with things they know nothing of.

      And our governments look on, bug eyed, chanting “that seems like a good idea”.

      • No, their grandchildren’s future is in their loins. If they so fear a warming globe for their grandchildren, they should have pulled out a long time ago.

      • “our grandchildrens future is in our hands”

        Hmmm…. Maybe it’s just me but, didn’t the scare always have to with “our children”? Now they are bringing up “our grandchildren” more and more.
        I wonder why?
        The old hippies’ kids are ignoring them just like they ignored their own parents?
        The projected catastrophes that were supposed to harm our kids haven’t, so the catastrophes have been projected out to “Our Children, The Next, Next Generation”?

  13. How about we quit funding this stuff, do nothing and some areas will get wetter and some areas will get dryer. Same conclusion.

  14. >>One method reduces rain too much. Another method reduces rain too little.<<

    And another method is to do nothing because there is no problem to solve.

    • heh- i can see there is a crying need for null advocacy! a few people are getting funded for it already.

  15. Paraphrasing Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) in Jurassic Park: The Lost World…

    Geoengineering “is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.”

    Efforts to cool the planet will work… And that’s the problem with geoengineering.

    • All I know for sure is that those with ice dilute the gin, which must have some sort of heat effect, no doubt modeled somewhere. Snake Oil has been around forever, but I look forward to a science historian going back to the period around the first Earth Day (1970) and compare it with today. Airplane in every garage sort of time. Not all were related to climate directly, one I recall was going to dam Long Island Sound, maybe even somewhat rational, for freshwater. Not the only estuary so considered, but maybe the largest.

    • Well, both methods require Man to introduce kinetic energy and, since anything Man does must be bad, both methods must be avoided at all cost.
      Switch to drinking beer.

    • If the stirring device is metal, say, and of large surface area, like a teaspoon maybe, then the spoon will be somewhere around room temperature right, and so some of this heat will get transferred to the ‘tini, whereas, in the shaker, the ice is absorbing heat both from the liquid and from the hands on the shaker, so the ‘tini is getting cooler overall, right, so less heat.

      Now a wooden stirring device, wood say (poor conductor), with less surface area, might reduce the amount of heat put into the “tini by stirring, but the shaken “tini, poured directly out of the shaker with no ice in it still seems to be the coldest, right?

      Oh, this is a climate blog — I forgot there for a second.

      ATTEMPTED SEGUE BACK ON TOPIC: … Global warming alarmists like to shake things up, which is ironic, given that a bar drink (on which the article bases its metaphorical title) that involves shaking things up would seem to be more on the cool side. I guess that means global warming alarmists are better described as STIRRING things up, then.

      I’ll take my geoengineering cocktail shaken, … as in shaken with sound reasoning.

  16. I determined from specific measurements that there is no man made warming. All warming and cooling is natural. There may even be a prolonged maximum looming 40 years from now, if we make it there. All that would do is bring is back exactly where we were 1000 years ago when the Vikings built settlements in Greenland which only recently became visible ;from the melting of the snow that had covered them…

  17. What they think they need is something that will reflect heat coming in from one direction, but not coming in from the other. Since CO2 reputedly transmits heat coming in from the sun and allows it to penetrate to the surface, while it reflects heat coming up from the surface to keep it from escaping the atmosphere, thereby heating the lower troposphere, I have a suggestion inspired by Maxwell’s Demon. May I humbly suggest they use upside-down CO2 molecules in the upper stratosphere. This should allow atmospheric heat to escape to space, while reflecting incoming heat to prevent warming of the atmosphere.

  18. I think I’ve got this right.
    They’ve solved the problem on a GLOBAL AVERAGE level. The only minor problem is that LOCAL weather will be either too wet or too dry. (Sorta like if I have one foot in a fire pit and the other on a block of ice; on average, I’m comfortable.)
    Now where did I just read about the problem one gets into when depending on averages….?

    • Better yet, they cannot tell you anything about local weather, cannot predict what changes occur, nothing that is even remotely useful to planning for the future.

  19. So, I’m making sprinkler system repairs in the sunny backyard. Air temp is 91 F, 305 K. Various tools scattered around. Fired up the system to check for leaks and started rounding up tools.

    Ever picked up a hunk of steel that’s been sitting in the sun? EEEYOOWW! Hot and then some. If you can’t hang on to it, it’s over 140 F, 333 K. That is how OSHA determined the limit for installing insulation or guards.
    That utility knife didn’t get 140 F + from the ground, it didn’t get that hot from the air, it was heated by the S-B IR from the sun.

    140 F, 333 K, is S-B BB 697.2 W/m^2. That’s a lot more than the 342 W/m^2 ToA seen in the K-T diagram and a whole lot more than the 160 W/m^2 that makes it to the “surface.” It’s over twice the bogus 333 W/m^2 GHG perpetual loop. Actually at 40 N and 30% albedo the maximum theoretical S-B BB power flux on a horizontal surface would be 733.6 W/m^2, 333.7 K, 147.7 F.

    1,368 W/m^2 * Cos 40 * .70 = 733.6 W/m^2

    This is known as engineering science. Our stuff has to actually work.

    • Must mean my metal hose ends exceeded 140° F because I yelped when I tried to hang on to them and let go very quickly! (97°F here, but it’s a dry heat….)

    • Whatever IR comes in from the sun is small compared to the rest of the spectrum. Itis not IR that is heating your tools.

  20. Honestly, THIS kind of bulls**t scares me more than ANYTHING to do with Climate Change.

  21. It would be immensely helpful for their endeavor if higher levels of CO2 actually produced more precipitation. Solving non-existent problems is really easy – they are “solved” almost no matter what you do.

  22. What could possibly go wrong? After all, look how well solar and wind power are doing making us self reliant with electricity. And it’s free!

  23. Yet another demonstration of the stunning idiocy of which once-serious institutions are capable when they seek advantage by placing themselves at the service of a political fad.

    • And when their meddling leads to a new ice age will these same scientists beg us to burn more fossil fuel to “cure ” their mistakes

  24. Coal, oil CO2 blah blah blah. Nobody ever mentions adding a teaspoon of salt to a bottle of Pepsi.

  25. Okay, where’s the science fiction movie about how the geoengineering goes wrong, we return to snowball earth and have to dig out enough technology to go live on the moon?

  26. The real problem is too many graduate students at public universities who spend all their time writing grant proposals, not because they care about their chosen field, but because they can’t get real jobs; they’re not qualified to do anything.

  27. Since I retired a while back I have managed to build a weather control machine in my garage. I’m pleased to report that initial tests have been quite successful. I can now generate thunderstorms, snow and control daily high and low temperatures and cloud cover. Unfortunately, I have had trouble with wind velocity control. I think the answer is to first tackle barometric pressure, but I don’t have enough space in the garage for the hardware. As I only have 100a, 208vac electrical service, the range is limited to about a 150 mile radius.

    I do have to apologize to Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois for the recent flash flooding. I inadvertently neglected to turn down the thunderstorm frequency function after a test run a few weeks ago. I’m still working on an add-on module to eliminate hail, but it has turned out to be a bit tricky. I’ve turned down the rain function for now and will not turn it up again unless my tomato plants start to droop.

    I won’t be able to go public with the details until I get the patent situation sorted out. Needless to say, this invention will generate a fortune in fees. Ski resorts, golf courses, farmers, brides planning outdoor weddings and major league baseball alone should bring in millions. The market is endless. Once word gets out, I’m sure DARPA will be calling.

    Once I have the patents, I’m planning on franchising so if anyone is interested, post a response and I’ll put you on the list. ;>)

  28. If the aim of geoengineering is to control the average surface temperature of Earth, the first item on the engineering checklist is to determine the set point temperature. In other words, what temperature do we dial into the thermostat?

  29. Can anyone explain how these “scientists” have determined the optimum global temperature? It appears that the IPCC has declared that another 1 degree C of warming would be catastrophic, and that pre-industrial temperatures were “just right”.

  30. Just suppose for a moment that CO2 is not a major climate driver, and even suppose that solar activity is the main cause of today’s warming. Yeah, I know that’s ridiculous. What If? The Sun is now entering a solar minimum, or grand minimum. If my ludicrous supposition turned out to be right, cooling could set in quite suddenly and unexpectedly. If we simultaneously started a geoengineering project to cool the Earth, it could precipitate a headlong dive into an ice age lasting 100,000 years, and wipe out the whole human race. Just saying.

  31. N Geoengineering ingredients in the cocktail, N! unexpected consequences.

    “Carbon dioxide emissions… cause the earth to get hotter…” and they start off with a thus-far unproven statement. Someone please show me the proof, and ‘what else could it be?’ doesn’t count.

  32. I got no problem with this! [snip]

    Reply: try and write without swearing. Euphemistic spelling doesn’t change that~ctm

    • Pssst they’ve realised global warming was made up, quick let’s create an ice age and get paid to “cure” that!

  33. “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg spent his Sunday afternoon smoking meats and doing a Facebook Live from his backyard in Palo Alto, California. While waiting for his brisket to slow cook, he delivered an admonition to Elon Musk, his fellow Silicon Valley billionaire, and others who sound alarm bells over artificial intelligence posing a threat to our safety and well-being.”

    Enjoying one last brisket before he gives up beef for the climate cause?

  34. Geo-Engineering the planet to mitigate ‘climate change’ is the worst possible idea. It presupposes that you understand what’s causing the climate to change in the first place, and its absolutely clear that consensus climate science doesn’t have a clue.

  35. Possibly the stupidest idea ever. Did these geniuses actually receive monetary compensation for this?
    I know! Why don’t we just shred a billion dollars, throw it up in the air to block the sunlight , and cool the earth??!!

  36. Interestingly there appears to be reasonably good science that geoengineering to control global warming may in fact be possible. The source behind this claim was the documentary “The Contrail Affect” or something like that which came out some years back on PBS.

    It related how in the aftermath of 911 when the air traffic system was shut down for almost a week across the entire nation there was a signigicant increase in measured evaporation which they attributed to reduced cloudiness because there were no contrails from commercial air traffic. As it happens it has been a long standing interest in the agricultural community to track this metric and there are literally thousands of stations with very long records in place so there was actually pretty great data behind the evaporation change. I found the data on reduced cloudiness and linking it to the change in evaporation a bit more sketchy but it seemed quite plausible.

    Of course it being PBS they needed to pervert the storyline toward the anti-global warming agenda and did so by claiming that this contrail affect was in fact masking warming that we should be seeing (i.e. This too could be a solution to the pause). Of course the thought that crossed my mind was that here was definitive proof that we might be able to reasonably control weather through the simple engineering and management of aircraft fuel additives and route management to specifically exploit this phenomenon. Of course that was apparently too creative a thought to occur to the producers and it was never mentioned. But still an idea with great merit if you ask me.

    One man’s opinion.

  37. Maybe we could just whack climastrologists with real cocktails.

    I suggest a real Margarita: three parts 80 proof white 100% blue agave Tequila, two parts 80 proof Cointreau and one part Key Lime juice.

    One of those and I’m guessin Mikey Mann would be on his fat trasero begging for someone to show him the way to ECS of 1.0 degree C.

  38. discussion at Carnegie institute (hush hush)

    “We need some grant money. Put together a team to model a combination of two different geo-engineering climate change fixes. Have them program it so we almost get a win win result, but not enough to be conclusive. Then present the results as a “surprise” and seek more grant money for us to continue this “research”.

  39. Look for some despite billionaire and/or multiple millionaires to get together and run with some of these ideas entirely on their own. After all they have been told that people will die and nations will be destroyed and wars will be fought all because nothing was done to prevent climate change. They now control access to space and own the hardware necessary. What is to prevent them from taking what they see as steps necessary to “save the planet “.

Comments are closed.