Geoengineering vs. volcanic activity for a cooler climate

[More crazy talk from Carnegie Institute’s Ken Caldiera… Anthony]

Washington, DC– Major volcanic eruptions spew ash particles into the atmosphere, which reflect some of the Sun’s radiation back into space and cool the planet. But could this effect be intentionally recreated to fight climate change? A new paper in Geophysical Research Letters investigates.

Solar geoengineering is a theoretical approach to curbing the effects of climate change by seeding the atmosphere with a regularly replenished layer of intentionally released aerosol particles. Proponents sometimes describe it as being like a “human-made” volcano.

“Nobody likes the idea of intentionally tinkering with our climate system at global scale,” said Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. “Even if we hope these approaches won’t ever have to be used, it is really important that we understand them because someday they might be needed to help alleviate suffering.”

He, along with Carnegie’s Lei Duan (a former student from Zhejiang University), Long Cao of Zhejiang University, and Govindasamy Bala of the Indian Institute of Science, set out to compare the effects on the climate of a volcanic eruption and of solar geoengineering. They used sophisticated models to investigate the impact of a single volcano-like event, which releases particulates that linger in the atmosphere for just a few years, and of a long-term geoengineering deployment, which requires maintaining an aerosol layer in the atmosphere.

They found that regardless of how it got there, when the particulate material is injected into the atmosphere, there is a rapid decrease in surface temperature, with the land cooling faster than the ocean.

However, the volcanic eruption created a greater temperature difference between the land and sea than did the geoengineering simulation. This resulted in different precipitation patterns between the two scenarios. In both situations, precipitation decreases over land–meaning less available water for many people living there–but the decrease was more significant in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption than it was in the geoengineering case.

“When a volcano goes off, the land cools substantially quicker than the ocean. This disrupts rainfall patterns in ways that you wouldn’t expect to happen with a sustained deployment of a geoengineering system,” said lead author Duan.

Overall, the authors say that their results demonstrate that volcanic eruptions are imperfect analogs for geoengineering and that scientists should be cautious about extrapolating too much from them.

“While it’s important to evaluate geoengineering proposals from an informed position, the best way to reduce climate risk is to reduce emissions,” Caldeira concluded.

###

Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL083701 (open access)

Abstract

Solar geoengineering has been suggested as a potential means to counteract anthropogenic warming. Major volcanic eruptions have been used as natural analogues to large‐scale deployments of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, yet difference in climate responses to these forcings remains unclear. Using the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Earth System Model, we compare climate responses to two highly idealized stratospheric aerosol forcings that have different durations: a short‐term pulse representative of volcanic eruptions and a long‐term sustained forcing representative of geoengineering. For the same amount of global mean cooling, decreases in land temperature, precipitation, and runoff in the pulse case are much larger than that in the sustained case. The spatial pattern changes differ substantially between these two cases. Thus, direct extrapolations from volcanic eruption observations provide limited insight into impacts of potential stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. However, simulations of volcanic eruptions can be useful to test process representations in models that are used to simulate geoengineering deployments.

Plain Language Summary

Major volcanic eruptions are considered as natural analogues for stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering that aims to cool the climate by increasing the burden of stratospheric sulfate aerosols. Volcanic eruptions produce a layer of sulfate aerosols that stays in the stratosphere for a couple of years, whereas geoengineering efforts would need to sustain the aerosol layer persistently to counteract CO2‐induced warming. Here we use a climate model to compare climate changes in response to a volcano‐like pulse aerosol forcing and a geoengineering‐like sustained aerosol forcing. When producing similar amount of global mean cooling, the pulse aerosol forcing results in a much larger reduction in land temperature and land minus ocean temperature when compared to that induced by a sustained aerosol forcing. Also, both land precipitation and runoff decrease more in response to the pulse aerosol forcing. Spatial patterns of temperature and the hydrological cycle change also differ substantially between these two types of forcings. These differences in the climate response between the pulse forcing and sustained forcing clearly show that caution should be taken when using climate consequences of volcanic eruptions to directly infer climate responses to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.


Added, a graphic from Willis Eschenbach which illustrates the issue:

And the data:

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “Geoengineering vs. volcanic activity for a cooler climate

  1. Going off Eschenbach’s graph of reality v. the models, the GCM models need serious work. If it is that far off, one needs a different tool.

    • I find the whole thing ludicrous in so many ways! Somebody comes up with the idea of intentional Human activity interfering with the Earth’s climate, to fix an alleged problem of the activity of man/womankind (I won’t let the Feminists off the hook) unitentionally interfering with the Earth’s climate! Allegedly of course! Now, what time is that One-World-Globul-Guvment scheduled to hit the fan covering everyone with the brown smeely stuff?

      • I find the whole thing ludicrous in so many ways! Somebody comes up with the idea of intentional Human activity interfering with the Earth’s climate, to fix an alleged problem of the activity of man/womankind (I won’t let the Feminists off the hook) unitentionally interfering with the Earth’s climate! Allegedly of course! Now, what time is that One-World-Globul-Guvment scheduled to hit the fan covering everyone with the brown smelly stuff?

        • Not only is the geoengineering idea a classic sourcerer’s apprentice scenario but the models to not work, so tell us nothing useful.

          If you do an “experiment” with a model you are studying the model , NOT Earth.

          We know that models are particularly “challenged” when it comes to basic processes like evaporation, advection, convection, condensation and precipitation. So what the hell is the point of examining the response of models in those areas, if it is not solely to change and improve the models?

          Beyond the classic four years surface cooling and stratospheric warming, stratospheric volcanoes cause the opposite: stratospheric cooling and surface warming. This happened to very similar degrees after both El Chichon and Mt P. and the effect was persistent.

          Models don’t do that since they mistakenly attribute much of this warming to AGW. They mistakenly attribute the loss of ozone caused the sulphate aerosols to CFCs.

          https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/uha_tls.png
          The parameters for scaling AOD have also been rigged to suport AGW.
          https://climategrog.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/

          This is the longer term cumulative effect of Mt.P : a steadily increasing energy input.
          https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp_ci.png

        • They found that regardless of how it got there, when the particulate material is injected into the atmosphere, there is a rapid decrease in surface temperature, with the land cooling faster than the ocean.

          So far so good, but you hardly need a climate model to work that one out.

          However, the volcanic eruption created a greater temperature difference between the land and sea than did the geoengineering simulation. This resulted in different precipitation patterns between the two scenarios.

          So a large initial impulse causes a larger response and a small steady input. Another No Schist Sherlock event.

          Now since we know that land has a lower heat capacity than water and thus responds about twice a much , it follows from the first banality that this will cause a great land/sea difference.

          All of this is blindingly obvious and can be noted from simple observations without the need to run defective , non validated models and believe that the output tells you anything relevant about Earth’s climate.

          I must have missed a career turn somewhere, I too could be getting a healthy researcher’s salary for stating the blindingly obvious.

  2. Let’s not fool with the atmosphere until the temperatures exceed the Feb. 2016 highpoint.

    I say that not because I think we should fool with the atmosphere but because I think it is going to be a long time before we reach the Feb. 2016 highs again.

    The year 1998 was statistically just as hot as 2016, but then the weather cooled and didn’t get back up to the level of 1998 until 19 years later. So if it takes 19 years to again reach this heighth I think that will give us enough time to realize it’s not nice to try to fool with Mother Nature.

    The author of this study talks about CAGW in the future tense. That’s the way it should be, because it is not happening now.

    The UN says all these horrible CAGW things will start happening in the future, but now the alarmist/activist narrative is that CAGW is already here and alarmists can see it. I think these guys are artificially speeding up the timetable. I guess that’s what desperation does.

  3. One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.

    This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles (volcanoes) with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.

    More albedo and the earth cools.

    Less albedo and the earth warms.

    No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.

    These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere/albedo cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of and contradicting greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.

    Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

    • Nick, respectfully, tread carefully when referring to “imaginary global warming/climate change”! The Green vultures will sieze upon it as “proof” of your “climate denial”. I believe in global warming & Earth’s constantly changing climate, as a retired engineer I have little choice when faced with rational, logical, reasoning & thought processes! My Geology/Geotechnical books are full of modest statements referring to a changing Earth’s climate, based upon lengthy studies of the Earth’s geology, the discovery of Plate Techtonics, etc!

      • ” I believe in global warming & Earth’s constantly changing climate, as a retired engineer I have little choice when faced with rational, logical, reasoning & thought processes! ”

        Believing in something is not scientific nor is it based on any kind of engineering I know. What are the mathematics of belief?

        A changing climate on planet Earth requires no belief; it actually exists and happens.

        I get tired of this piss poor non-scientific, undisciplined language.

      • As an engineer I look for the area with the greatest warming that is surrounded by one of lower anomaly levels and expect that to have high fossil fuel use or the starting point to be rejection of the theory of it being fossil fuel related without really serious justification.

    • Nick, an Earth sized planet at Earth’s distance from the sun, with no clouds or atmosphere, rotating every 24 hr., but still .3 albedo, would be colder than the Earth.
      But the Earth has radiative gases in its atmosphere that are an intermediate temperature between the ground and outer space. These radiative gases are at the same temperature as the Nitrogen and Oxygen they are mixed with, giving the sky a temperature that can be measured with an infrared thermometer. This intermediate temperature causes sunlight to heat the ground a few more degrees than it would if the ground could just radiate directly to outer space, via the Stefan Boltzmann formula. At ground level, H2O is the dominant radiative gas, but by top of troposphere, water has rained and snowed out, and H2O is at a far lower concentration than the 400 ppm CO2.
      There is no -430 frozen ball of ice scenario, there is a radiative gas effect, the solar wind couldn’t heat a cup of coffee….etc.,etc.,…

  4. If global warming were a serious problem (which it is NOT), then this might be a solution.

    Since global cooling is a much more probable near-term problem, let’s just put this little idea on the shelf – way back on the very top shelf – where it is nearly invisible and very hard to reach.

    (Make no sudden movements… …quietly now, maintain eye contact, and slowly back out of the room.)

  5. Given that there has been an overall climate cooling for the past several thousand years and the fact that warm climates are better for most of the biosphere, the idea that a bunch of eco-engineers want to monkey with COOLING the climate just sends chills down my spine.

    • And they are going to muck it up in a way that they will not only make it worse but create a string of unintended consequences that they won’t be able to fix and as mankind tries to muddle through the mess that they will have made it will finally become clear to all that CO2 had absolutely nothing to do with global warming but alas to late and we will have to round up all the ALGORES, Hansens, Manns, Dicraprios and doomsday posters for their long overdo comeuppance.

  6. This is actually well researched and the cost is negligibly low compared with everything else, approx. 10 billion per year “to save the planet”

    Says the IPCC with “high agreement” (SR1.5, chapter 4.3.8.2)

    “There is high agreement that cost of SAI …may be in range of 1–10 billion USD yr–1…to achieve cooling of 1–2 W m–2”
    https://t.co/5wQ49diNVU?amp=1

    Its flexible can be implemented strategically, because the effect disappears quickly once seeding is stopped:
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d/pdf

    This would give us all a huge breather, and certainly crash parts of the trillion dollar Green lobby, but perhaps more importantly, remove the biggest “reason” to transform civilization into centrist Huxley/Orwellian societies. And that may be a reason for pressure to move control over geo-engineering from the IPCC to (very very green) UN Environment Assembly.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-blocks-u-n-resolution-on-geoengineering/?redirect=1

    • There is an easy way to get rid of the climate problem … we just take everyone who believes there is a problem to a small atol, where we explode a nuclear bomb and demonstrate how easy it is to create a nuclear winter (or not). I guarantee no one will be saying there’s a climate problem after that.

      • The easiest way is to get rid of UN. We really don´t need this greatest imaginary trouble seeking/making/brainwashing entity, which only meaning to existence is to scare the hell out continuously to keep its fake self importance very visible and loud.

  7. ?????

    when the particulate material is injected into the atmosphere, there is a rapid decrease in surface temperature, with the land cooling faster than the ocean.

    OK.

    However, the volcanic eruption created a greater temperature difference between the land and sea than did the geoengineering simulation…. In both situations, precipitation decreases over land–meaning less available water for many people living there–but the decrease was more significant in the aftermath of a volcanic eruption than it was in the geoengineering case.

    HUH?
    The ocean is relatively unaffected, so evaporation does not change much. The land is cooler, so should induce *more*, not less precipitation.
    OR
    What goes up, must come down. Once water evaporates, precipitation must happen somewhere. It seems that precipitation will be preferentially in the now cooler areas.
    Yet they claim just the opposite.

    Am I missing something?

    • What goes up, must come down. Once water evaporates, precipitation must happen somewhere. It seems that precipitation will be preferentially in the now cooler areas.
      Yet they claim just the opposite.

      Am I missing something?
      ___________________________________________________

      You’re missing the affordable part “water evaporates,” because of temperature

    • Only the surface of the water can evaporate, and the sun drives most of that mechanism. So less sun = less evaporation.

      Warm air can hold more water than cool air. So cooler air = less moisture held = less rain.

      • The perfect example of this is on the island of Hawai’i. The Hilo side versus the Kona side of the island. The warm wet air blows into and through Hilo hits the built up volcanic peaks rises, cools, and the water precipitates out. The wind continues to blow up and over and back down the other side but is cool and dry.

    • However, the volcanic eruption created a greater temperature difference between the land and sea than did the geoengineering simulation.
      This wasn’t a clue that perhaps their simulation wasn’t correctly determining heating?
      I might have re-examined my ‘simulation’ if it didn’t yield estimates that match real observations.

  8. It is accepted (by say 97% or more to keep the number impressive) that major eruptions cause climate cooling. Except we really have had few in the modern record, plus anecdotes about never ending winter in long past eruptions. What if the global temperature dips were simply random noise, and little to do with volcanoes ?
    Take the eruptions off the graph, take off the year….then pick when the eruptions were from the graph spikes and dips….oops, you’re wrong most every time….This implies that the volcano correlation is pretty weak, with a possibility of actually being totally incorrect. This throws some water on the calculation of climate sensitivity, which would be calculated as too high. Anyway, off to the West the sun is setting, Mount Saint Helens not that far away….sunset is red just as it was in the summer of 1980….

    • It very much depends on where the aerosols are placed. The basic idea aerosols would reflect solar radiation is extremely short sighted. Would they not also reflect LWIR? How would you ever get a net cooling out of that?

      I guess the crucial point is that such eruptions can put aerosols into the stratosphere, well beyond the adiabatic lapse rate. Up there temperatures all a bit disconnected to the troposphere and furthermore surface temperatures. As much as such aerosols absorb solar and LWIR radiation, that should well raise temperatures up there (any data hereto?), while not having much effect on troposphere temperatures. Increased albedo might then cause an overall cooling as a net effect.

      However, this will not work by putting aerosols just into the troposphere. Rather it would have the adverse effect and warm the planet.

  9. Any attempt to decrease global temperature is dangerous, some scientists are warning of a grand solar mimimum, and earth is on the way to a possible magnetic pole reversal. The magnetosphere is weakening and cosmic radiation is in the range of the highest ever recorded. If the science is correct and as a result of the aforementioned..there is a very real chance of global cooling in the near future. Not to mention that global temperature is less than 1/2 deg c, above the cold period of the 1970s, that said, is there anyone with a functioning brain out there that would try to reduce temperatures, or for that matter still dare to suggest that there’s a problem to begin with?
    Note; I did mention a functioning brain..just in case a greenie spots the comment.

  10. All this effort and thought to implement a solution to a non-problem, it certainly is crazy! And reminds me of the fill called “Snowpiercer”.

  11. Lets just detonate a small 10MT nuke in Krakatoa & Vesuvius … that’ll cool off the Globe 🙂 /sarc.

    On a more serious note … one day there will be a geo-engineering plan that the UN implements, and when they do it, all hell will break lose and we will left be in deep doo-doo with no escape mechanism … and I know this because the Book of Revelation talks about something happening on a world-wide scale that mankind implemented to ill effect … so it will happen.

    • Maybe drill into the Yellowstone caldera and use it as a carbon dioxide storage repository?
      This kills two birds with one stone, and what could possibly go wrong?
      (Okay, so maybe we also kill a few tens of millions of people…)

  12. What better way to insert particulate matter around the globe than to do it via the exhaust from plane engines — then we can really watch the ĉĥěɱ țȓąĭŀ scare sky rocket!

  13. It is the 29 plus years of extreme geiengineering chemical air dumping that has caused this extreme temperature problem and is killung all life in earth according to the nwo plan God creates maintains weather have these fruitcake scientists never heard that it isnt nice to fool mother nature? Time to stop the climate engineering catastophe now!

  14. “They used sophisticated models to investigate the ….”

    But of course they did. The sophistication of these peoples’ models knows no limits.

    • As said before, these people need to go back school. Sophisticated does not mean something is a technical marvel, or full of some technical wizardry, it simply means corrupt & adulterated, job done!

      • The term “models” in plural is even worse.
        If one model is good (or more properly said, accurate), why do they use more than one? If they use different models that render the same outcome, why don’t they just stick to one? (And how come different models with different parameters give the same results?) And if they give different results, how do they know which result is the correct one?

        I hope they don’t take the average and claim it is the correct answer just because it is the average. That would be silly.

  15. So pollutting the world to save it from Climate Change? How about going back to old coal burning tech of the 1930-40s instead, that dramatically cooled the earth for decades.

    • Exactly. Just shut down the electrostatic precipitators which were installed on coal fired power plants beginning in the 1950s to reduce particulate emissions. The shade thrown by these airborne particles would have the same effect. Also, since these particulates are mostly alkaline, when the rain passes through its pH will be raised. Voila! No more acid rain.

      Might be tough on those with asthma though.

  16. Until we fully understand natural variation, and what causes what long term, then it would be reckless to experiment with cooling. Just our dumb luck, their experimentation would coincide with a natural cooling trend and would maybe wind up with a year with no summer and hundreds of millions perish because of a killer month long widespread nightly frost on the northern hemisphere cereal crops. Let’s figure out what the long term climate does naturally, and how much CO2 and other GHG’s are causing any net warming. And whether the human caused warming, if any, is net positive overall. I think it must be be net positive already, maybe 75%-25% positive/negative given we have exponentially grown the planets population because of the warming and fossil fuels.

    Although I do see a day in the long term future when mankind can direct the general weather patterns with space based tools like shading parts of the planet to decrease heating where desired, or increasing insolation to specific parts of the planets surface at different times of the year with large mirrors that double as our asteroid/comet bolide protection plan. Which is why I believe humans will figure out how to alleviate the next ice age with enough of these space based tools. Ok…enough SF speculation for now.

  17. I love their phrase “stratospheric sulfate aerosols”. What they mean is “sulfuric acid”.
    Commenter MS25, above posts some links. The second one has the gory details. In short, a specialty aircraft carries tons of elemental sulfur to altitude. There, it is burned to produce sulfur dioxide, which is your “stratospheric sulfate aerosols”. Of course, things do not stop there and sulfur does what sulfur will do. The sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid. Naturally the very heavy molecule settles out of the stratosphere, and once in the troposphere it quickly rains out as sulfuric acid.
    Just wait until Greenpeace hears about this Acid Rain.

    • I was taught that SO2 pls was makes sulphurous acid ( relatively mild). Then, given some energetic oxidation, you get sulphuric acid. This was bench chemistry. In the atmosphere, other factors like ozone might make sulphuric a more likely product, beyond what I was taught. Geoff S

      • Geoff, the copper oxide leach projects that utilize sulfuric acid follow this general procedure: native sulfur (S) is burned producing SO2, the chimney saturated with water mist, H2O, and the combined product becomes sulfuric acid H2SO4. These are called contact plants. The agriculture fertilizer manufacturers follow a similar protocol also.

  18. What happens if / when a real volcano goes off big-time as in 1816, the year without a summer, in addition to the human-caused sulphate aerosols?

    • exactly.
      and thats quite likely watching the increasing larger eruptions in recent months.
      the bums rush to push idiocy like this is so when the cooling happens naturally as it will,
      the agw truebelievers..
      will claim that THEY saved the planet and they were right all the time.
      and when more die of cold, crops fail and thing get ugly?
      they will be nowhere to be found by the mobs looking to hand draw n quarter em all.

  19. It is very easy to reproduce the effect of volcanos and cool the earth – simply remove the SO2 scrubbers from coal plants and you’ll get plenty of cloud forming SO2 – and the low cloud will reflect the sun’s energy and cool the earth … the reverse of the 1970-2000 effect when we removed SO2 from coal plants globally.

  20. This process would be guaranteeing the creation of extreme weather events because of the temperature difference potential.

    Such a project will create worse storms and hurricanes, plus the oceans will lose heat to the atmosphere, and the longer we meddle, the bigger the impact when the oceans balance it out, by taking heat from the atmosphere, the longer we do it the worse this will be.

    These lunatics have no idea what they are doing

    This will cause the very things they are incorrectly blaming on CO2 now.

    • “This process would be guaranteeing the creation of extreme weather events because of the temperature difference potential.”

      As opposed to adding 600Gt of CO2 which shouldn’t have any effect at all, right?

      • Loydo, if you knew how many thousands of trillions of tons of nitrogen and oxygen there is surrounding this planet, you would realize that 600 Gt is a very small percentage of the atmosphere. Very, VERY small.

  21. The whole concept is a complete waste of time as first we need both sunlight and CO2 to feed ourselves and secondly our contribution to global warming is negligible and thus best left to natural processes.

    Fixing non existent problems is NOT a good use of resources.

  22. Despite all the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So there is no CO2 warming to counteract. I believe that deliberately adding particulate mater to the atmosphere is a bad thing and for at least health reasons should be discouraged.

  23. funny how all the msm is ignoring the extreme cold in finalnd sweden and huge chunks of russia the last week+
    friend in Ufa reports cold days 10c today and heavy cold rains, cold nights even some snow a while back
    in full midsummer
    but a few hot days in a pommy summer got mass global attention?

    • Cold weather doesn’t fit the Alarmist narrative, so they ignore it and hype the short-lived heat.

  24. It’s almost as if these idiots – got a better word for it? – want an ice age, isn’t it? They should be careful what they wish for. I’ve already been through several blizzards with left so much snow at my front door that my neighbor had to dig me out. A perpetual cold climate isn’t necessary.

    Last winter it wasn’t a blizzard, but a slop storm (sleet, rain and snow mixed) that interfered with the power lines, shut off power to nearly 400,000 in my county alone, and required that the power line guys get out in that slop all day, fixing something that Mother Nature tried to break. I have never had as much respect for those guys as I did during that period of uncertainty, and still do, and was truly glad that my house was so thoroughly insulated against the cold.

    These people really are idiots. The more “bright” (stupid) ideas they come up with, the more they show their own ignorance. There is no need to interfere with Mother Nature’s plans. If an ice age is going to start, and it will soon, she’s the one who will start it.

    What part of “February blizzard buries cars on Chicago’s Outer Drive” is so impossible for them to understand?????

    Didn’t the city of Davos, Switzerland, have so much snow two winters ago that the self-proclaimed climateers had difficulty getting to their conference hall?

    When is it going to sink in with them that we puny humans have ZERO power over Nature’s whims and we can be wiped out in the blink of an eye?

    I’m more and more convinced that these so-called climate scientists are nothing but money-grubbing borderline wackos.

    • Perhaps, but seems more likely that they “believe” that the climate is unchanging. The universe and/or the physical world requires no belief. It does not need our permission to be exactly what it is.

      At this point they would blame Trump if a meteor stuck earth and claim he was racist against meteors.

      If he cured cancer they would still call him an idiot.

      The MSM could wear a 10 gallon cowboy hats and still walk under an alligator and not touch it’s underside. That is how low and dishonest they have become.

  25. All to support “the Global Dimming Pronect” funded by Bill Gates – which is actually a population reduction program since food growth will be greatly reduced. Rotten to the core as most commentors clearly see.

  26. The Cult of Calamitous Carbon Catastrophe trot out these emergency “solutions” to “climate change” more to frighten than in any seriousness or sincerity. In other words, “if you really hate this idea, then maybe now you will get serious about getting off fossil fuels”. It’s like kids fighting in the backseat of the car and the parent saying “don’t make me come back there”. It’s a ploy.

  27. the authors say that their results demonstrate that volcanic eruptions are imperfect analogs for geoengineering and that scientists should be cautious about extrapolating too much from them.

    It’s not the volcanos that are “imperfect”, it’s the models. This article offers concrete proof that the GCMs are imperfect.

  28. Finally a simple solution to global warming that even “skeptics” can love — On the same computer, run a global warming simulation at the same time as a geoengineering/volcanic simulation of global cooling. The right combination of programs with the right constants input will reduce the global simulated temperature rise to zero. Then we can all rest in the peace and quiet free from the din of warming psychos and “activitists”.

  29. This howler from the “Can GCM’s Become More Stupid” Dept:

    One of the new models, the second version of the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), saw a 35% increase in its equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the rise in global temperature one might expect as the atmosphere adjusts to an instantaneous doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead of the model’s previous ECS of 4°C (7.2°F), the CESM2 now shows an ECS of 5.3°C (9.5°F).

    https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/New-Models-Point-More-Global-Warming-We-Expected

    The insanity intensifies…

    • Last line of the short abstract, has to do with sensitivity concerning aerosols and clouds. “CESM2 simulations compare very well to observations of present climate. It is critical to understand whether the high ECS, outside the best estimate range of 1.5–4.5 K, is plausible.” My experience (blank out the subject) in reading papers (a form of masochism) published nowadays is that well into the paper they admit to more problems than they do in the abstract. Paywalled
      https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL083978

      • Thank you for that information.
        It seems to easy to hide behind half-as*d journalism to promote falsehoods.
        Unfortunately it appears that trend is accelerating.

  30. Let’s see if I understand. Not afraid of CO2, but afraid of attempts or expirements like this. We need a water squirting climate navy to put reflective water vapor into the atmosphere. Lomborg liked this idea. Let’s see what happens?

  31. For what it’s worth…

    Attempting to geoengineer the climate on a global scale is a bad idea. Period. The reasons why are many but the primary one is blatantly obvious.

    WE do NOT know what we are doing.

    This one reason should be what ends any conversation about geoengineering climate on a global scale.

    Now, there is a second reason that has, near, the primacy of the first reason.

    WE do NOT matter.

    Anything we do to try and geoengineer climate on a global scale will be useless on any, meaningful, time scale.

    Congrats! After a decade of persistent (whatever stupid thing WE tried) the average temperature of the planet fell by .2C +/- 2C at a cost of (Whatever the cost is) and an ongoing cost to maintain it of (whatever that cost is). Keeping in mind, the whole time, that any one of hundreds of volcanos could erupt in cataclysmic fashion and show us how it’s really done. All our efforts will be lost in the noise and would need to cease. Hopefully, to never be attempted again.

    Folks, we’re just not there yet and, unless we make some pretty miraculous strides in a whole lot of science and engineering fields, we will never be to the point where we could successfully geoengineer the global climate. If we ever reach that level of capability, we probably will not want or need to.

    Cheers

    Max

  32. So we are going to meddle with the climate based on an allegation that climate change is man made and that group has been allowed to be detective, prosecution counsel, jury and judge and no defence allowed as 97% of them agree the client is guilty. This, knowing that group that is financially wholly dependent on the premise being believed.
    In my book that is not too bright.

  33. No need for geoengineering, Nature appears to doing a grand job of popping some particulates into the atmosphere. In the last month or so there’s been quite a bit of volcanic activity. [culled from https://electroverse.net/category/volcanic-seismic-activity/ ]

    Sabancaya Volcano (the “Tongue of Fire”) Erupts to at least 31,000 feet (9.4 km) — August 6, 2019.

    Another High-Level Eruption Observed at Ulawun Volcano — Ash Column Rising to a Colossal 63,000 feet (19.2 km)–August 4, 2019.

    Ubinas Volcano, Peru Explodes to 40,000 feet (12.2 km)– July 20, 2019.

    Manam Volcano just Exploded to 50,000 feet (15.2 km) — June 28, 2019.

    Ulawun’s Activity revised-up to a Full-Scale Subplinian Eruption — Ash Fired to 63,000 feet (19.2 km) — June 26, 2019.

    Ulawun Volcano, Papua New Guinea just Exploded to 50,000 feet (15.2 km) — Further Cooling the Atmosphere — June 26, 2019.

    Raikoke Volcano Continues it’s Massive Explosive Activity Today — Ejecting Ash to 38,000 feet (11.6 km)– June 25, 2019.

    Sudden Massive Explosive Activity at Raikoke Volcano, Russia — Ash Fired to 43,000 feet (13.1 km) a.s.l. — June 22, 2019.

    187 Exhalations Detected at Mexico’s Popocatépetl Volcano in just 24 hours — the Largest of which Sends Ash to 42,000 feet (12.8 km) a.s.l. — June 18, 2019.

    Mexico’s Popocatépetl Volcano Erupts with a Strong Vulcanian-Type Explosion, Firing Ash to 32,000 feet (9.8 km) — June 15, 2019.

    Sinabung, Sumatra Explodes to 55,000 Feet (16.7 km) — Solar Connection + Global Cooling Effect — June 9, 2019.

    Mexico’s Popocatépetl just blew to 37,000 feet (11.3 km) — the Volcano’s Largest Eruption in Years — June 3, 2019.

  34. Something crazy just popped into my head: What if the expanding trails from the planes in the sky are actually geoengineering or solar radiation management already happening in full scale? Now that they admit at least thinking about doing it (have admitted that at least 2 years ago already), all of a sudden it’s like: “Holy crap! Could there actually be some truth behind the theories about chemtrails?” Oh dear, silly me…

  35. When in need of publication effort in the volume-based research reward system, there are times when ludicrous effort is quite rational from a monetary viewpoint.

Comments are closed.