Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Harvard University is planning to conduct an experiment to test the effectiveness of sunlight blocking aerosols dumped into the stratosphere.
Harvard Scientists Begin Experiment To Block Out The Sun
Dec 5, 2018, 12:40pm
Trevor NaceA group of Harvard scientists plans to tackle climate change through geoengineering by blocking out the sun. The concept of artificially reflecting sunlight has been around for decades, yet this will be the first real attempt at controlling Earth’s temperature through solar engineering.
The project, called Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment(SCoPEx), will spend $3 million to test their models by launching a steerable balloon in the southwest US 20 kilometers into the stratosphere. Once the balloon is in place, it will release small particles of calcium carbonate. Plans are in place to begin the launch as early as the spring of 2019.
The basis around this experiment is from studying the effects of large volcanic eruptions on the planet’s temperature. In 1991, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted spectacularly, releasing 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The sulfur dioxide created a blanket around Earth’s stratosphere, cooling the entire planet by 0.5 °C for around a year and a half.
…
From the description of the experiment;
Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx)
SCoPEx is a scientific experiment to advance understanding of stratospheric aerosols that could be relevant to solar geoengineering. It aims to reduce the uncertainty around specific science questions by making quantitative measurements of some of the aerosol microphysics and atmospheric chemistry required for estimating the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering in large atmospheric models. SCoPEx will address questions about how particles interact with one another, with the background stratospheric air, and with solar and infrared radiation. Improved understanding of these processes will help answer applied questions such as, is it possible to find aerosols that can reduce or eliminate ozone loss, without increasing other physical risks?
At the heart of SCoPEx is a propelled scientific balloon that can travel a few meters per second (walking speed) relative to the surrounding air. The 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 fly the gondola back and forth through the volume to measure the properties of the perturbed air.
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.
…
What is the experiment?
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 1 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.
…
Read more: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
Obviously this experiment will not cause any harm – the quantity of material the Harvard Scientists intend to release will not have a significant effect at ground level. What frightens me is the possibility of larger scale experiments, serious attempts to lower global temperature.
From a study published in August;
Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Published: 08 August 2018
Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker
Nature (2018)
Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3
A serious attempt to block sunlight using stratospheric aerosols could cause global crop failure and famine.
You would think that given the obvious problems nobody would go forward with such an effort. But the green political scientific nexus has a track record of not considering the consequences of their actions.
Back in 2008 lavish biofuel subsidies caused hunger and food riots in poor countries, as subsidised grain purchases drove up the global price of vital agricultural staples.
The ongoing fuel tax protests in France are another example of a serious failure by greens to consider the consequences of their actions. Despite belated French government efforts to retreat from their original provocation, the situation in France is now so unstable the French police union is urging members to join the protests.
Given the horrendous track record of green political irresponsibility, it is reasonable to be concerned about the harm geoengineers and their green political sponsors may cause, if one of their over enthusiastic sunlight blocking experiments goes awry.
What’s next??–confiscating topsoil so there’s no way to grow fruits and vegetables?
Our educational system has run amock!
They don’t realise what they are doing.
In cases the cooling will come, than cheers !
If ecofasc1sts help the world slide into ice age by geo-engineering, then they will be prime candidates for the Darwin Prize.
Of course, they will not accept it in person, as millions of other less privileged people will contribute the qualifying deaths.
I guess Harvard are doing their best to falsify the Gaia hypothesis.
“Mad Science : is when you don’t have to worry about -what is the worst possible
outcome.?.”
This is Mad Science..
#HarvardKnew
Now that we know that Norway is the northernmost country with the coldest climate and the one that is most affected by climate change (Bob Tisdale) we have a good reason to sue anyone that is intentionally trying to cool down our climate. We intend to take Harvard for every nickel they are worth. We can add anybody with a deep pocket (like Germany and Cal.) to the case. And the venue will be the DC court system. We could hire Steyn to report on the proceedings. That will be at least 10 years of entertainment.
Start recording for the next chapter of “Unintended Consequences”. I actually have no problem with this study, but let’s say they decide to try actually controlling temperature over a broad area, like the Southwest U.S. Say further they manage to successfully lower average temperatures there by 2 degrees…
First better get ready for all the lawsuits on putting dust in the air – it will only be a matter of time for someone to stir up hysteria about the dust and sue for damages. It doesn’t matter if it actually harms anyone, it just has to sound scary to enough people to win a lawsuit.
Second, what if lowering the temperature in the Southwest U.S. has unintended consequences, say additional rainfall in the Midwest. Once again, expect someone to sue when there are two 100 year floods in the same area – never mind you cannot prove it was caused by lowering temperatures in the Southwest.
So ultimately, this kind of “control”, even if it works, will never be safe in the U.S. due to the lawsuit mentality.
Then let’s say China picks it up…hey they don’t care about lawsuits so they enact it to lower temperatures over all of China and it works! And then Russia. And then India. Suddenly winters get colder in the U.S. and snow starts increasing…is it natural? Who knows. U.S. food production goes down due to longer harsher winters. Canada turns a bright pretty white – all year long. Well, China, Russia, and India don’t care (well, Russia might care because it turns white too). If I lived in Alaska, I would be cheering Global Warming on, not trying to reverse it.
Climate control is a really dangerous idea, because we could actually be successful but we have proven again and again we can’t predict the side-effects of large engineering projects. We are much better at building sea walls and dikes at a local level then trying to manage the global climate.
Meanwhile, the Earth slowly moves towards a more temperate climate – let’s just leave it be.
What could possibly go wrong? Please stop these idiots….
This is illegal under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which more than 175 countries have ratified.
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/un-convention-still-says-no-manipulating-climate
http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/files/final_geoengineering_brief_cop_13_web.pdf
Thanks for the link because my question was going to be on who’s authority does any one group have the right to screw with my climate.
I tend to agree they shouldn’t have the authority, but not based on UN. The UN’s BS studies and GIGO climate models are directly responsible for this crap.
As far as I’m concerned, the UN already spews more than enough sulphate aerosols and greenhouse gasses out of their tailpipes (both literally and figuratively).
I saw ‘a TV thing’ some while ago, can’t recall what exactly, but can recall my ‘take-away’ from it.
It concerned a guy in Arizona who was growing olive oil.
This was ‘class’ olive oil, extra virgin, first pressing from perfectly ripe fruit and no windfalls. None of your cheap and nasty engine oil here.
He was getting over 2,000 litres, per acre of trees, of saleable product.
Must consider that nearly the same again was left on the ground in wind-fallen fruit and he could have got another 50% with hot or chemical pressing.
So what was the Gross Yield of that Arizona olive plantation – 6,000 litres per acre per year?
Now then, farmers in the UK ‘try’ to grow vegetable oil – rape-seed oil or= canola?
Rape seed oil is pure muck, mostly for exotic chemicals, paint making or Biodiesel and so they squeeze every last drop of the stuff out of the seed by every means they can – and still only get 500 litres per acre yield. Gross yield maybe 550 litres?
The difference between Arizona oil and UK oil – the amount and quality of the sunlight ##
Very similar considerations will apply to plants making other big, complicated and energy intensive molecules – such as protein not least.
UK farmers cannot grow soya, by example, simply because we don’t have the ‘quality’ of the light to do the chemistry that makes protein, in any quantity.
Yes we have 17 or 18 hour days and its nice & warm with the Gulf Stream but not the high energy photons to power the chemical reactions involved.
Even small amounts of what these clowns are proposing will completely trash agriculture.
Everywhere
And the output of solar panels – and solar power stations.And Biomass,
It is paranoid knee-jerk thoughtlessness like this that has got Mrs May asking if we are ‘anxious’ and why women everywhere are now keeping their legs crossed and simply saying ‘no’
Then they go to lawyers to level charges of unreasonable behaviour. What these guys are thinking of doing is exactly that:
Unreasonable. Not sensible. Without reason. Insane.
## Exactly the same considerations apply to the GHGE but no-one wants to know – it is *quality* not quantity of the radiation that matters – that has a heating effect.
Rides a Coach & Horses through the ozone hole nonsense also, complicated chemical reactions do not happen in low energy environments nor accelerate as temps fall.
We could release it south of 55 degrees south latitude to help cool Antarctica in summer time, this will allow sea ice to survive a bit longer, cool the continent, and maybe start reducing sea level. We can take credit for the extra land, especially in places with very expensive real estate like Montecarlo and Monterrey. This could even be a huge money maker on top of making us famous and earning us the gratitude of those Pacific islanders whose islands will be larger.
This experiment is from the same woke crowd who oppose all manner of energy development because of their concern for all things environmental. Now of course nobody better demand of them and their experiments that they demand of anyone else.
They may be “woke”, whatever that means. But they’re not awake.
Sounds like something that Cortez woman-the Congress person elect-might think of … if she could think
Such an experiment sounds useful as long as it produces useful data.
Suppose, for sake of argument only, that the alarmists turn out to be correct in a hundred years. Having a Plan B to prevent runaway global warming means we don’t have to be stampeded into doing stupid things right now, like wrecking the economy and therefore civilization.
I agree with you, most here do not, apparently. I don’t see anything terribly bad happening as 1 kg of chalk dust is going to be dispersed and will not stay suspended for very long. Hopefully, they will be able to produce useful data.
I have no problem with releasing 1Kg of chalk into the air, to see what happens.
What worries me is the clear intent to scale up to experiments which impact the global climate.
Yep, the dose makes the poison.
Do we have laws that intentional sabotage of the environment is a crime? If so, that word needs to be put out, and anybody who actually tries to do this needs to be arrested tried convicted and sent to prison.
It’s an insane plan, but probably less insane than the idea of stopping global warming by spreading socialism around the world.
Angel: Spot on!
Angel Artiste December 8, 2018 at 12:06 pm
It’s an insane plan, but probably less insane than the idea of stopping global warming by spreading socialism around the world.
Reply
Harry Passfield December 8, 2018 at 12:28 pm
Angel: Spot on!
Global warming does not need to be stopped – Stop buying into their argument. Stop letting them set the agenda. Wake up!
Such an experiment would be beyond idiocy. It would be criminal. It ought to be outlawed by the US government or at least challenged in court. Let them prove the need for it. They won’t be able to do that because their pseudo-scientific reasoning cuts no wood.
I’m sure it’been said before: What could go wrong?
This is the arrogance of scientivists. They are dangerous people.
While I am with Alan Tomalty that these are seriously deranged people who should be put somewhere quiet where they can’t do any harm, if there is no shortage of money in the US to waste then we should put them in a rocket with lots of paint and brushes and send them off to paint the Sun black.
Screwing around with things that really are beyond their limited imagination and which have potentially seriously adverse results really is mad.
That’ll putpaid to Californias mandatory solar panels then.
I hear it is super-popular in far northern Cali. where, I’m told, the sun does come out a few times a year.
maybe
if someone hasn’t given it a scare
The warmunists are all bat$#;+ insane. All of them.
What global warming? These guys are bonkers!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
It’s like a five year old with a wrench trying to fix a Maserati.
NIMBY
It’s a fantasy solution to a fantasy problem, which would not only be hideously expensive, but likely would have unforseen, and possibly disasterous consequences if implemented.
These nutty professors at Harvard must really want to create widespread global crop failure and famine for everyone. This should complement the oncoming Maunder minimum and get everyone on a weight loss programme.
And remember, scientists in the early 70’s, concerned about global cooling considered pouring soot over the arctic and diverting arctic rivers. They knew those actions could have dangerous, unforseen consequences though. The idea that man can, or should even try, to change the climate is indeed cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy. We may as well try to halt the tides.