Climate Scientists Look to Poor Countries to Fund Geoengineering

Sulphate Aerosol Geoengineering. By HughhuntOwn work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientists are hoping the leaders of poor countries desperate to stop their people suffering climate hardship will fund their stratospheric sulphate injection experiments.

Rich countries aren’t stopping climate change. Can poor nations save themselves?

By James Griffiths, CNN
Updated 0159 GMT (0959 HKT) September 10, 2019

Tall and stony-faced, with a long and bitter history of fighting for democracy, Tongan leader Akilisi Pōhiva is not someone you’d expect to break down in tears at an intergovernmental summit

At a meeting of Pacific leaders last month in the tiny island nation of Tuvalu, other attendees saidPōhiva was overcome with emotion as he tried to secure Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s support for a more forceful approach to tackling the climate crisis.

Should developing countries take action? 

So far, efforts to tackle the climate crisis have largely focused on international agreements to reduce emissions, ones that have been — by and large — profoundly unsuccessful in doing so. 

While the most effective way of lowering global temperatures is to reduce emissions, this is something that requires a global response, unlike some geoengineering methods which could be carried out — at least in theory — by a single country or group of countries. 

“Unfortunately, the most environmentally responsible way is also the most politically difficult,” Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, said last year. “If there’s a leader of a country whose people are starving, and they think by injecting some particles in the stratosphere they can feed their people and alleviate suffering, the political pressure to do that is going to be intense.

Read more:

It seems implausible that leaders of poor countries will obtain the cash to fund a major geoengineering experiment, but what would happen if they did?

The result could be a global catastrophe. A study of natural sulphate injection events, volcanic eruptions, made the surprising discovery that plants need sunlight. Injecting sulphate into the atmosphere crashes crop yields.

Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Published: 08 August 2018
Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker 

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:

I’m really concerned about the stratospheric sulphate injection idea, its unlikely that anyone will attempt this at sufficient scale to cause problems, but people shouldn’t even be trying to do this; the consequences of injecting sulphate on a large scale seem far worse than any “damage” which might accrue from a degree or two of warming.


84 thoughts on “Climate Scientists Look to Poor Countries to Fund Geoengineering

  1. 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 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 cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of 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.

    • What is often missed is that the atmosphere neither cools or warms the earth. Rather, the atmosphere along with water moderates and distributes temperatures around the globe keeping us in a fairly narrow range of atmospheric temperatures. Stand still for long enough on the sunny side of the moon and your sunny side would boil while your shaded side froze.

      • Loading up the atmosphere with the same crap that killed the dinosaurs… what could possibly go wrong?

        Before they start on that they should answer the fundamental question: Why are our computer models wildly inaccurate?

        Seems to me that if they can’t answer that question they should not be loading the atmosphere with life killing crap. It’s highly likely that their computer models that predict the effects of life killing crap will be wrong also.

      • The insulated walls of a house neither cool nor warm the house.

        They passively create a temperature profile (lapse rate) between the heated inside and the colder outside (Alaska) or air conditioned inside and the hotter outside (Phoenix).

        During a winter’s day the south sun facing side is warm and the shaded side is cold.

        To move current through an electrical resistance requires a voltage difference.
        To move fluid through a hydraulic resistance requires a pressure difference.
        To move energy through a thermal resistance requires a temperature difference.

        The atmosphere obeys Q = U A dT same as any other insulated system.

        U is a complex combination of conduction, convection, advection, latent and, yes, radiation moving in all directions through the atmosphere.

        The sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air.

        No up/down/”back” LWIR hocus pocus required.

        • “Unfortunately, the most environmentally responsible way is also the most politically difficult,” Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science,

          There is nothing “environmentally responsible ” about screwing around with a climate system you are profoundly incapable of understanding the workings of.

          Caldeira needs to STFU.

  2. So, if I fill the atmosphere with ‘muck’ (burn my garden waste) I’m polluting. But if a scientist does it to stop Climate change (that he can’t prove) it’s OK then.

  3. So its borrow money from the federal bank, or starve… Isn’t it supposed to be a world wide problem (sarc)? Yet its the poor who should borrow billions to save themselves…. Does the below, say that its the sun causing weather?

    Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function

    • I don’t think the Pacific Islanders believe them selves to facing starvation. They believe themselves to be sinking into the sea, which in reality has been happening since they volcanic islands first emerged out of the sea only slowed by the growth of coral reefs.
      I fail to see how by emitting tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere this will have much if any effect on their conditions.

      BTW WTF is:
      “the global agricultural damage from climate change.”
      What agricultural damage has global warming supposedly caused?
      I thought the added CO2 was improving agriculture.

  4. I’m guessing that rich countries won’t let these scientists do their experiments. There was a private experiment of dumping iron oxide into the ocean to improve the salmon population. The government came down on those folks real hard.

    • Why, you might ask, are people opposed to increasing the salmon population?

      Silvia Ribeiro, of the international anti-technology watchdog ETC Group, says that projects like George’s distract from the need to reduce carbon emissions. “It is now more urgent than ever that governments unequivocally ban such open-air geoengineering experiments,” he said. “They are a dangerous distraction providing governments and industry with an excuse to avoid reducing fossil-fuel emissions.” link

      They absolutely, totally, completely, are opposed to anything that might make things better and distract from their war on fossil fuels.

      • The iron oxide fertilizes the plankton and the salmon eat the plankton. The plankton take a lot of CO2 out of the ocean. That, in turn, removes a lot of atmospheric CO2. The activists really don’t like that because they think it might solve CAGW and they’d have to come up with something else to compaign against. link

        • Got it in ONE! 😉

          As I’ve said before, in the late 1940s early 1950s, we were all going to die as a result ofall the radiation from the immenent Nuclear Holocaust after the inevitable Nuclear War, what was needed was a globul approach (guvment) under the auspicies of the UN!

          In the late 1950s early/mid1960s we were all going to die from the impending & immenent Chemical/Biological warfare any minute now! It didn’t happen!

          In the early to mid 1970s we were all going to die because ofthe impending & immenent Ice-Age just around the corner, due to all the atmospheric industrial pollution caused by mostly the evil wicked Capitalist West, as temperatures had been apparently cooling over the previous few years, that didn’t happen!

          Then towards the end of the 1980s throughout the 1990s we were all going to because of Globul Warming, caused by all the atmospheric industrial pollution, mostly CO2, & they haven’t stopped!

          I gather from what I have read here & elsewhere that there has been no Globul Warming of any significance for almost 20 years!

          I wonder what’s on the cards next if (when) the present calamity & disaster fails? They are running out of ideas soI guess it’s like watching the BBC, endless repeats!!! Ho hum!

          I wonder what’s next?
          “what was needed was a globul approach (guvment) under the auspicies of the UN!”

          • I forgot to add, the above is why the activists & left hate & despise scientists & engineers, because every time they create a problem, we solve it!

          • The best thing any politician can campaign against is an unsolvable problem. Imaginary problems fit the bill.

            It gives them a permanent talking point that they can go back to time and again over decades.

            The concern with being a problem -solver- is that if it’s a universally acknowledged problem the politician is probably not smart enough to come up with the best solution, and the best solution might not be the most politically acceptable to their constituents. If it’s a disputed problem then it’s hard to pander to both sides.

            It’s SO much easier to attack imaginary problems, or those without any realistic solutions. No creativity required, no pragmatism required, just tee up the same speech year after year and call it good.

    • The poor are obviously easier to exploit. Progressives in general prefer the captive audience. That’s why they always do their social experiments on students trapped in classrooms or – worse – the military, who are duty-bound to obey the dictates of ‘leaders’ that aren’t really on their side.

    • No. Won’t be a problem. At all.

      The GWAlarmists are proposing leaving the spending to poor countries, because more-and-more the rich countries are telling them “Thank you very much, no thanks”. But guess what? Poor countries are poor for a reason; usually one of the top two reasons in fact:

      1) they’re really poor and have to spend all their foreign exchange to buy oil, in which case they have no money for global warming alarmism; and if anybody would actually lend them any money for anything, they wouldn’t spend it on this. Or/and,

      2) they’re poor because their leaders are greedy, corrupt, totalitarian despoilers whose motto has always been “One for All, and ALL FOR ME!” and even if anybody would lend them money for global warming or anything else, it would all vanish into their pockets in record time – why not, nobody ever complains – twice – and they’ll be back in a week whimpering for more; with lots of doctored statistics showing what a GREAT investment in Saving the Earth the last loan was.

      So no, not going to happen anytime soon, and not worth worrying about.

      • But, there could be some loony environmentalist who has more money than sense and is willing to “loan” the money/equipment to some leaders who have been buffaloed into thinking this is a good idea. The individual could eventually claim absolution as they didn’t spread the doom into the sky it was Tuvalu or Tonga who did the deed.
        …And, how would we stop them? What possible recourse would the world have against such utter disregard for known repercussions.

        In a similar bent on reckless actions, the Israelis sent a probe to the Moon with live, albeit dormant, Tardigrades. …and crashed , spilling the cargo onto the lunar surface.

        Time will tell the long term effects of contaminating the lunar surface with extremophiles, but I have a hard time thinking it will be positive.

        • – Gosh, that would be really nice if the loony rich lefties would SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY on this for a change, and no more of our tax dollars that they ripped out of our hides with a gun up our nose…

          { – I can dream, can’t I? – }

  5. “If there’s a leader of a country whose people are starving, and they think by injecting some particles in the stratosphere they can feed their people and alleviate suffering …”

    The implication is that by “injecting some particles in the stratosphere”, “a country whose people are starving”, “can feed their people and alleviate suffering”

    Can we examine how injecting particles into the stratosphere leads to more food? What is the timeline for increased food production? The process is intended to ‘alleviate suffering’ of ‘people [that] are starving’ now.

    Perhaps the ‘leader’ could address their people with this:
    “People, I feel your plight, I know you’re starving. Once we inject particles into the stratosphere, we’re hoping our temperatures will become marginally cooler, and in time this will marginally increase food production, we hope. Be patient and carry on.”

    Perhaps the ‘leader’ could offer an alternative such as: “let’s learn to fish so that we may eat today”

    • You are making an assumption that political leaders actually care about their subjects. In most cases they only seem to see them as a source of votes or as a resource to be exploited for wealth (or as in the U.S,) both.

  6. Once upon a time, back in the 1960s, Weather Control seemed like it was on the verge of possibility, as did many new things, like going to the moon. As Weather Control loomed larger and larger, various actors became increasingly concerned. Some countries viewed the whole concept with great suspicion. They felt that Weather Control, if practical, could be used as a weapon. Certain countries, powerful enough not to be ignored, stated clearly that if they has any floods, droughts, massive storms, that were “not natural”, they would consider it an act of war, and respond in kind.
    None of these concerns have gone away. If any country is harmed by “inadvertent” side effects, they will respond somehow. If they feel it was deliberate, things could get ugly.
    This is how you get wars.

      • I understand that point but New Scientist did an article on geoengineering and these things were cheap and simple, like me. About the same cost as a squadron of Typhoons.

      • Nope, though I’m usually cynical. A New Scientist geoengineering idea, totally reversible, cheap and simple, like me. Costs about the same as a squadron of Typhoons.

  7. Fund their own geoengineering?

    HA ha ha these countries are still looking for the handouts from the UN they were promised in return for going along with what IPCC wanted them to say.

    Sorry, poor countries. You got BURNED badly by these people. The check is not in the mail and it isn’t coming.

    PS – Don’t do it again!

  8. Back in the 1970s it was suggested that soot should be dispersed over the snow in Siberia to ward off global cooling. Glad they didn’t do that either.

  9. “Former senior FEMA officials arrested on bribery and fraud charges over Hurricane Maria relief effort in Puerto Rico”

    “The former president of Cobra Acquisitions, a company that secured $1.8 billion in federal contracts to repair Puerto Rico’s destroyed power grid, was also arrested by the FBI, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.”

    WOW !

    • Puerto Rico shat their own bed when they kicked out Whitefish Energy because the left was complaining so much about that company being from the same town some Trump appointee was from. They were getting the job done, but PR terminated the contract with no one else to do the work. Then this corrupt company took its place.

  10. These geo-engineers know that poorer countries don’t have the armies of lawyers capable of suing them into non-existence when things go wrong with this goofy scheme.

  11. Wow, the DPRK has been going about it all wrong. Instead of firing rockets into the ocean, they should instead threaten to inject the atmosphere with sulfate, because “climate”.
    Geoengineering: The Ultimate in Climate Terrorism.

  12. “While the most effective way of lowering global temperatures is to reduce emissions…”
    Completely unsupported assertion, with zero actual evidence offered (because no such evidence exists) stated without qualification, as if an established fact.

  13. Mr Caldeira ought to know about volcanos. If he nevertheless persists and succeeds in doing his Frankenstein experiment then, when it backfires on massive scale, he will find himself in the dock for crimes against humanity.

  14. Actually, sulfate aerosol injection into the stratosphere was given some air time here at WUWT a while back. A few points came out after the crowd had considered the issues.
    First: Balloons are toys. They may be OK for demonstrating an effect (if that), but are useless for production work.
    If You Are Serious: The first thing you need to do is contract with Boeing Aerospace to design, develop, and build a fleet of purpose-built high-altitude, heavy-haul aircraft. What you need to do is haul a massive tonnage of Sulfur up to the stratosphere. Clearly, this is entirely possible with current technology, it is just that there are no current aircraft suitable to task. If you can afford to build this fleet of aircraft, you probably can keep your most poor people well enough fed.

    On a more personal note:
    I occasionally propose truly crazy things to do. Some of my ideas were:
    1) Build an induction coil around the planet Mars. Turn the whole planet into a giant induction furnace so as to remelt the planet’s iron core and re-establish a planetary magnetic field. This is as a prelude to colonization.
    2) Dump vast industrial quantities of concentrated Sulfuric Acid into Boston Harbor. This would be the “Acid Test” of the theory of “Ocean Acidification”. (Ask me what I think of the city of Boston.)
    3) Reunite Gondwanaland. Winches and cables. Really big ones.

    In all cases, people think my ideas are anywhere from crazy to barking mad to totally lunatic. OK, fine.
    Here we have somebody who wants to add enough stuff to the stratosphere to alter the climate of the entire planet. And to do so in a way which is totally unpredictable. Now, people think all this is perfectly sensible. Because “Climate Change”, or something. This is barking mad. My ideas make sense compared to this.

    • Why not simply have the existing airlines burn high sulfur fuel?

      Why the enmity towards Boston?
      They’ve greatly improved the harbor’s water quality. I some places near the shore you can actually see the bottom.

      • 1) Airliners really do not fly high enough. To have a good effect, you really want to get into the stratosphere.
        2) Boston and it’s environs are fairly wealthy. They do all they can to tax the crap out of the more poor rural areas, ensuring that these areas will never stand a chance economically. All the while, they justify this huge wealth transfer with “Boston is the Economic Engine of the region”. Sure. If the city was such an “economic engine”, why do they need such a huge wealth transfer from the rural areas every single year. Boston claims to be the cultural center of New England. The place is crowded, dirty, and dangerous. Some cultural center. When it rains, all you can smell is wet concrete and diesel fumes.

        They’ve greatly improved the harbor’s water quality

        No they did not. The rest of the state had to pay for that cleanup, too. After the rest of the state had paid for their own clean-up projects. Then they found all kinds of creative ways to force the rest of the state to subsidize the famous “Big Dig”.
        The only place worth going to is Logan Airport, and you already know why.

        • Airliners regularly fly above 35K ft above the tropopause and into the lower stratosphere. At the poles the altitude is lower (23k ft), but is much higher nearer the equator (60K ft). Flights from Europe to the western US have their routes pass very near the north pole (great circle route) so they must be flying through the stratosphere during some part of the flight.

          Regarding your dislike towards Boston, I have always seen discord between the hinterlands and urban centers regarding public spending.

  15. Back when I earned an environmental science degree, sulfate aerosols were still considered pollution and CO2 was considered a trace gas essential for life on this planet. But in the post truth world…

  16. It is not obvious what effect of global warming on Tuvalu would be altered by sulfate seeding. It isn’t sea level since that has not changed since readings began in the early 1970’s, according to data.

  17. Given that the concept of a “global climate” is, together with a “global average temperature” a fantastical myth I have yet to understand where a rise of 2C is going to cause irreversible disaster.
    For the record, at 1400 UTC today the recorded temperature range on earth is 115.7C – what is the average (and where is it)?

    • Take one reading at the North pole, one at the South and two opposing readings at the equator and average. Now do that 365 time and average again. Only takes four thermometers to monitor and will likely be as accurate as any other methods.

  18. From the article: “It seems implausible that leaders of poor countries will obtain the cash to fund a major geoengineering experiment, but what would happen if they did?”


    A preemptive strike would be required to stop those fools.

  19. The volcanic eriptions that happened in the recent past put SO2 in the atmosphere and it is estimated the temperatures were lowered about 0.5C, and this cooling effect lasted for a year or two.

    So from a practical point of view, how are humans going to put enough SO2 in the atmosphere equal to a large volcanic explosion every couple of years?

    Btw, the global temperatures have cooled about 0.5C since 2016. The geo engineers should probably hold off on their project until we determine whether we are entering a cooling period for a few decades. We don’t want them pushing us into an Ice Age, now do we? 🙂

  20. Reminds me of old Popular Science or Popular Mechanics suggested proposals. Almost non ever came to pass.
    Old Dick Tracy comics were better predictors but I am still waiting for an anti gravity machine.
    I am betting that virtually none of the readers out there are old enough to understand what I am talking about and internet searches are likely to be unproductive.

    • As a youngster and aspiring scientist/engineer I would pour over these magazines and marvel at the interesting stuff they propounded. Then I went to MIT and became educated in real physics, real science and real engineering. Once my ignorance had been dispelled, I rolled my eyes at the naiveté and ignorance displayed by these “bell-the-cat” proposals (the kid of proposals that are summarily disposed of as soon as somebody asks, “How are you going to do that?”)

      Some of Dick Tracy’s gadgets have come to pass: wrist communicators. Many have not, such as the antigravity buckets they flew about in. Sadly nobody will ever be marrying a Moon Maid. (cute antennas though) There, you’ve lost your bet.

    • I remember, though I had forgotten about the anti-gravity, personal flying platform.

      There was a 1957 Popular Science (mechanics?) TV show that I rented from BlockBusters a couple of decades ago. It highlighted futuristic concepts researchers were developing. I showed it to my research group to keep them grounded when blue-skying new concepts. Not only did none of the research come to fruition, some of ideas had become absurd in the face of things that were developed.

      I hope it will only take a few more years until everyone finds this whole topic absurd.

  21. “climate scientists” are shameless fraudsters. If they can’t get money out of rich countries they go after poor countries.

    • Well, they get a platform from CNN and their ilk to rant nonsense, but unfortunately this is not a revenue generating activity

  22. That isn’t actually what the purpose of this plan is. They know global warming isnt panning out to be a problem. They want to do something like this so that even with global warming not going to be a crisis anyway, they can credit geoengineering for ‘preventing’ warming, flooding, drought, etc. and not be blamed for the horrible costly damages and deaths that their actions and hysteria have already caused.

  23. There is no real evidence that “sulfate aerosols” would actually have any influence outside of causing acid rain.

    Satellite measurements of ground temperatures in the IR are not corrected for “sulfate aerosols,” and these aerosols are nothing but an escape hatch for “climatologists” to climb out of when CO2 in the air isn’t doing what it’s “supposed to do.”

  24. ““If there’s a leader of a country whose people are starving, and they think by injecting some particles in the stratosphere they can feed their people and alleviate suffering, the political pressure to do that is going to be intense.“

    Ummmm…..Less sunlight=less plant growth=less food ! D’OH !

  25. We have been geoengineering our planet since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when we began introducing SO2 aerosols from the burning of fossil into our atmosphere.

    By the mid-1970’s, they had increased so much that their cooling effect led to fears of a return to the Little Ice

    Then, due to global Clean Air efforts, we began removing SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere, and temperatures naturally warmed up, as they HAD to (the actual cause of all of the anomalous warming that has occurred since the late 1970’s).

    So, we have been there, done that.

    Thus, the judicious re-introduction of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere is all that is needed to restore Earth’s temperatures to more a more benign level. However, this re-introduction might need to be partially reversed, whenever a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption occurs.

    (Their introduction cannot be used as a weapon, since any increased levels are quickly distributed around the globe, affecting global temperatures everywhere)

    • So, we have been there, done that.

      How do you know that? Where are the measurements?

      …affecting global temperatures everywhere

      Because it cannot be anything else?

      • Ranier:

        We know from Plinian volcanic eruptions of at least VEI4 intensity that their injection of SO2 into the stratosphere will cause some temporary global cooling, as their SO2 aerosols circulate around the Earth.

        And when they eventually settle out, temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels because of the cleansed atmosphere.

        Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions into the Troposphere have the same effect, causing cooling as they increase, and warming if their levels decrease, as happened due to global Clean Air efforts.

        Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions for the the years 1750 -2014 are available on-line:

        This is the data which answers your ‘”Where are the measurements?” question.

        A few examples: 1850: 2.4 Megatons
        1900: 21
        1950: 50
        1975: 126
        2000: 109
        2010: 113
        2018: 80 (est.)

        • Thanks, will look into it.
          BTW, wind cools the objects it hits by more evaporation. Wind turbines slow down wind. Ergo windmills heat the climate.

  26. While the most effective way of lowering global temperatures is to reduce emissions, ” [James Griffiths, CNN, 2019]

    I guess the statement is by James G., although not unique to him, it is still a WAG. And wrong.

    Cute drawing with the volcano, ship, and balloon:
    The artist takes liberty with scale.
    Note the palm tree equates with the tropics where the Stratosphere is at about 45,000 feet (~13,700 m.).
    The palm tree looks to be about 1/3 of that, or 15,000 feet tall. About 4,600 meters.
    Would the coconuts be the size of the RMS Titanic?

    Seriously, climate alarmists seem not to understand the concept of scale. Whether the land for solar or the number of wind turbines, never do alarmists show the numbers to bring such sources of electricity to replacing coal, gas, and hydro.

  27. Caldeira: ““If there’s a leader of a country whose people are starving, and they think by injecting some particles in the stratosphere they can feed their people and alleviate suffering,…”

    That must be a modern version of the Cargo Cult. Which has come back to roost, it may seem , originating in those same Pacific islands (that are still not under water):

    “A cargo cult is a belief system among members of a relatively undeveloped society in which adherents practice superstitious rituals hoping to bring modern goods supplied by a more technologically advanced society. These cults, millenarian in nature, were first described in Melanesia in the wake of contact with advanced Western cultures. The name derives from the belief which began among Melanesians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that various ritualistic acts such as the building of an airplane runway will result in the appearance of material wealth, particularly highly desirable Western goods (i.e., “cargo”), via Western airplanes.”

  28. “Climate Scientists Look to Poor Countries to Fund Geoengineering”

    Silly gween wabbits, don’t they know that the “poor countries” only supported all these dumb ideas because they expected to get money, not give it ! lol

  29. What exactly are these poor people suffering from Re: the climate? No more bad weather than during other climate optimums, and far less suffering than during the 1.5 C cooler and “famine plagued” LIA.

    I cannot believe how docile the population is in the face of this very divisive propaganda. Every story reported by the MSM is either hyped-up (leftward) or a flat out lie.

    Fortunately, the population is also not mobilized at all in the fight against a Climate problem that’s supposedly gonna kill everyone.

    • The odds of counting the hurricane deaths as climate CRISIS .? Started in ernest just since this one that scrubed bahamas.sitting is new.

  30. Just because someone can draw a cartoon of the setup doesn’t mean its engineering feasible until actual engineering is done.

    Given that the tether-hose to the ballon would be at least 12,000 meters if it were directly vertical to reach the bottom of the stratosphere, I wonder if anyone has actually done the engineering calculation on that setup?
    Some items: Hose inner diameter, gas pressure at bottom of the hose, tensile strength requirements of the tether, flow rates to deliver the SO2 in quantity needed for a the needed aerosol effect, hose-tether weight the balloon would have to suspend, then how big the balloon would have to be using helium or hydrogen gas. Then from balloon size the expected maximum wind forces on the balloon, then working that back down to size the tether, and then the tether weight again to size the balloon.

    I have my doubts a balloon big enough to suspend 12,000 meters of sizable hose-tether to deliver the necessary flow rate of SO2 is engineering possible. And the tension on the hose-tether would be sizable if the big balloon were experiencing windshears and wind at altitude.
    But I’m not a balloon engineer.

  31. Hold on thar! We were forced to reduce sulphur emissions because of ‘disastrous’ acid rain. Coal fired electrical generation had to end, to ‘save the planet’.

    Now we ‘need’ to add sulphur to the atmosphere to ‘save the planet’? Fire up the coal boilers, Boys! We’re back in business! We produce 24/7/365 reliable, low cost, dispatchable electricity and we save the planet as a by product!!!

    This is analogous to regulating and taxing cigarettes out of business because they were unhealthy… and then creating and taxing new unhealthy smoking industries (marijuana, vaping, etc.) because governments needed to replace the ‘lost’ tax revenues. It’s environMental schizophrenia…..

  32. We do not know what the optimal global climate really is let alone how to achieve it. Extreme weather events are part of the current climate and of every climate regime that we know of, so changing the global climate will not get rid of extreme weather events. The normal state of the Earth is not to have polar caps or low altitude glaciers which implies higher sea levels then we have today. The next ice age will cause sea levels to lower at the cost of ice sheets forming on North America and Eurasia. The next ice age will probably inconvenience more people than it will help so I believe that most of Mankind will want to enjoy the current interglacial period for as long as possible. Adding particulate pollution to the atmosphere may be detrimental to all. The possibility of human caused climate change can be gotten rid of via the forced extinction of mankind but mass suicide may not be too popular in many human communities.

  33. I have a real problem in any organization thinking they have the power to inject some crap or other into the atmosphere to solve a totally none-existing issue. If they can do that so casually why are they so adamant about not allowing ocean enrichment with iron oxides to increase the plankton population, the bottom of the food chain, to allow increased population at every level of the food chain to allow increased seafood catches? Zubrin reported on the British Columbia experiment where a “rogue” greenie dropped over a 100 tons of oxide, and the year after they had the largest salmon catch in living memory. There were other experiments off the Galapagos which were also positive for increased plankton population. The food chain simply consists of the eaters and the eaten. Increase the population at any level in the food chain and the levels above flourish. There is zero value in spending money to decrease solar intensity locally. Buy some sunscreen.

  34. “Tall and stony-faced, with a long and bitter history of fighting for democracy, Tongan leader Akilisi Pōhiva is not someone you’d expect to break down in tears at an intergovernmental summit.

    At a meeting of Pacific leaders last month in the tiny island nation of Tuvalu, other attendees saidPōhiva was overcome with emotion as he tried to secure Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s support for a more forceful approach to tackling the climate crisis.”

    Crocodile tears?
    Since, his island is growing, not shrinking or getting washed away, Akilisi has to resort to emotional disturbance to obtain some of the huge amounts of money alarmists promised.

  35. Reducing emissions is NOT “the most effective way of lowering global temperatures”, it is the most ineffective and most expensive, while geo-engineering is the most effective and least expensive, according to the IPCC (high agreement!), only around USD 10 billion/year.

    And according to a recent study, photosynthesis increased by more than 50% since the start of industrialization due to CO2 fertilization. Reduction of sun light is very small compared with this effect.

  36. The odds of counting the hurricane deaths as climate CRISIS .? Started in ernest just since this one that scrubed bahamas.sitting is new.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *