Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering

Dangerously Stupid Science: Solar Geoengineering

By Jim Steele

new report from the National Academies of Sciences recommended the United States pursue a robust research program into solar geoengineering, to reflect sunlight and forestall some of the worst effects of global warming.  Seeking $200 million over 5 years for research from the Biden administration, those scientists push a climate crisis narrative, arguing greenhouse gas emissions are not falling quickly enough and, “Without decisive action and rapid stabilization of global temperature, risks from a changing climate will increase in the future, with potentially catastrophic consequences” This should alarm everyone. Not because a climate crisis is real, but because solar geoengineering is the height of stupidity and truly endangers humanity. Still solar blocking experiments were planned for June 2021 in Sweden. Fortunately objections from other scientists, environmentalists, and Indigenous groups just cancelled those plans … for now.

In contrast to many failed “climate crisis” predictions, there’s an abundance of research detailing the truly detrimental effects of decreased solar heating. Human suffering during the cooler Little Ice Age (LIA), spanning 1300 to 1850 AD, has been well documented. Scientists agree LIA cooling is linked to volcanic activity and several periods of reduced solar output associated with low sunspots, such as the Maunder Minimum that lasted from 1645 to 1715 AD. Satellites have verified that less solar energy is emitted when sunspots decline. During increased volcanic activity, volcanic aerosols are spewed into the atmosphere reflecting sunlight away from the earth. Likewise climate scientists seek to inject aerosols into the atmosphere to cool the earth. It’s mind-boggling that fear‑ridden scientists would want to return our climate to the cooler temperatures like Little Ice Age. So please examine what a similar LIA cooling of 1°C (1.8°F) could do.

Tropical rainfall patterns control the subsistence lifestyle of more than one billion people. Reconstructions of precipitation during the cooler 14th and 15th centuries reveal a series of monsoon mega‑droughts in central India, north-central China, and southern Vietnam, each lasting several years to decades. Although the Maunder Minimum increased rainfall in Africa’s Sahel, it also resulted in a megadrought in subtropical West Africa. Could cooling the earth be construed as racist?

Tropical rainfall and the Asian and Australian monsoons are largely controlled by the region where moisture carrying trade winds from the north and south converge. The earth’s greatest rainfall happens there and is called the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). It is easily recognized in satellite images as a band of heavy clouds.

As the sun moves northward during the northern hemisphere’s summer, the ITCZ likewise shifts northward, and a rainy season follows. During the winter as the ITCZ shifts southward the rainy season moves southward while the more northern region then experiences a dry season. Regions south of the ITCZ experience a dry season when northern tropics experience more rain and vice versa. Scientists have shown variations in solar strength alter the ITCZ and the accompanying rainfall.  However the ITCZ does not strictly follow the sun. Its location is also affected by the temperature of the oceans and continents. During the LIA, cooler northern hemisphere temperatures pushed the average position of the ITCZ southward, resulting in the monsoonal megadroughts and famines that devastated India, and southeast Asia.

The LIA cooling of 1°C disrupted ocean and atmospheric circulation around the world, so that alternating good and bad weather whiplashed a struggling humanity. Indeed climate scientist Michel Mann wrote, “the Little Ice Age may have been more significant in terms of increased variability of the climate”. Bouts of extreme inclement weather from about 1550 to I700 AD brought famine and the age of great mortality to Europe. Ten percent of the population of northern France died in 1693-1694. In northern China, rapid cooling and increasing extreme disasters in the late 16th and 18th centuries resulted in severe social consequences characterized by more famine and popular unrest.  The year 1816 was known as the Year Without a Summer, and prompted historians to write about The Last Great Subsistence Crisis in the Western World.

In contrast, with minimal increases in land use, our so-called warming crisis paired with the industrial world’s technological innovations to steadily increase global food production and feed a burgeoning global population that had increased from 600 million in 1700 to 7.7+ billion today.

In the polar Urals where trees had previously existed further northward, the colder 15‑19th century temperatures replaced forests with treeless tundra, as  new tree growth was totally inhibited. On the other hand, twentieth century warming has now allowed tree line to recover its pre-LIA habitat. Satellite data reveals a global greening and multiple global ecosystem models suggest CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of that observed greening trend.  Long appreciating such CO2 fertilization, commercial growers around the world pump an extra 1000 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses to increase plant growth.

By the 1700s a new killer began to dominate the LIA – accidental hypothermia. When indoor temperatures fall below 48°F for prolonged periods, the human body struggles to keep warm, setting off a series of reactions that causes stress and heart attacks. During the intense cold season of I739/40,  indoor temperature readings fell below the freezing point throughout Western Europe. Frozen rivers disrupted transportation, creating a shortage of coal and wood for home heating in urban locations causing numerous deaths from  accidental hypothermia. The cold and dry weather also caused shortages of grass and fodder resulting in widespread death to livestock. Though not as devastating as the LIA thanks to modern heating, Americans from the Great Plains as far south as Texas were killed by cold weather with over 100 humans dying during the February 2021 cold snap.

The weaker LIA sun also cooled the upper 600 meters of the oceans, and reduced upwelling. Based on marine sediments off Peru, oceanographers uncovered very low marine productivity during the cooler LIA. But warming that began in 1850 soon brought rapid expansion of upwelled nutrient-rich waters, resulting in the present-day higher biological productivity from plankton to pelagic fish throughout the marine food web.

Its most disturbing that the varied crises predicted for a warmer 21st century were worse during the cooler LIA. For example global warming is predicted to spread tropical disease. However from 1564 to the 1730s – the coldest period of the Little Ice Age – malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Malaria outbreaks expanded into the Arctic. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. Similarly the first mosquito-borne yellow fever outbreaks in the United States occurred in late 1690s. Nearly 100 years later, in the late summer of 1793, refugees from a yellow fever epidemic in the Caribbean fled to Philadelphia. By the middle of October, 100 people were dying from the virus every day. Those outbreaks encouraged the US to move its capital from Philadelphia to Washington DC.

Major media outlets frequently fearmonger headlines such as “Melting Antarctic ice will raise sea level by 2.5 meters – even if Paris climate goals are met, study finds” . But the scientific community has produced solid evidence that Antarctica’s surface temperature has been cooling for the past 2000 years. The entire period from 141–1250 AD was warmer than 1971–2000. The LIA period of 1671–1700 was warmer than Antarctica is today. Scientists report that changes in the winds and natural upwelling of warmer deep waters best explain any changes in the basal melting of Antarctica’s ocean‑terminating glaciers

Major media outlets will cherry‑pick speculative research to proclaim, “Climate Change Is Making Hurricanes Stronger, Researchers Find”. However the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index suggests other factors are in play. In the Southern Hemisphere (green line), there has been no change in cyclone energy. However in the Northern Hemisphere (blue line), hurricane energy varies with El Ninos and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

Experts examining historic archives of hurricane disturbances found the frequency of intense Caribbean hurricanes increased at around 1700 AD. Despite the region’s cooler LIA ocean temperatures, sediment records from Puerto Rico to New York indicate an increase in intense hurricane landfalls since about 1700 AD. Other researchers found more than 13 category‑2 or stronger hurricanes per century hit the Bahamas between 1500 to 1670 AD, compared to just 9+ per century since 1850 AD.  Thus many experts now believe that sea surface temperatures as high as we now observe are not necessary to support intervals of frequent intense hurricanes. Intervals of frequent intense hurricane strikes over the past 5000 years corresponded primarily to periods with relatively few El Nino events and the strength of West African monsoon. Thus to accurately predict changes in intense hurricane activity, it is more important to understand how El Ninos will respond to futureclimate change. But there is absolutely no consensus on how rising CO2 affects natural El Ninos.

Media outlets, politicians and some scientists have also profited by blaming wildfires on climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists (as many others have) presents a misleading graph of increasing wildfires since 1985. But cherry-picking a 1985 start date is blatant dishonesty. If we extend observations back into the LIA starting in 1700, there has been a clear decline throughout the fire prone southwestern US. Similarly in Quebec, a 300‑year fire history from 1688 to 1988 AD  shows wildfires decreased starting 100 years ago.

The USGS admits there is no direct relationship between climate and wildfires. However the evidence clearly shows a direct relationship with more humans causing more wildfire ignitions while additionally making landscapes more fire prone. Fires need kindling like dead grass and twigs to start, and human disturbance has increased the supply invasive grasses. Dead grasses and twigs become highly flammable within just hours of warm dry temperatures that are common every summer regardless of climate change. Large fires also need an adequate fuel supply, and decades of fire suppression and poor fuel management have created more fuels that promote bigger fires. Furthermore many of California’s largest fires in recent decades occurred when local  maximum temperatures were lower than in the 1930s.

So why are climate scientists suggesting the cooler temperatures of the LIA are the wiser ideal to pursue? It’s hard to comprehend when the science suggests otherwise. Of course every profession has its share of idiots and misguided professionals. In 1970 Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against the problems facing mankind. To ‘celebrate’ the 1970 Earth Day, Stanford’s Paul Ehrlich wrote “that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” In 2012, the media trumpeted the prediction of Cambridge University’s world leading expert on sea ice of “the final collapse of Arctic summer sea ice within four years”. And in 2000 climate expert David Viner wrote, “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event…Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

None of these “expert opinions” have come to past. So why do some climate scientists continue to push climate crises???

It appears many intelligent scientists proclaiming a climate crisis suffer from the Pygmalion syndrome. Pygmalion was a great sculptor from Greek mythology who thought his statue of a woman was so beautiful and realistic he fell in love with it. He no longer became interested in real women. Likewise some climate modelers having invested their life’s work in sculpting life‑like climate change models, have become smitten with their model’s limited perspective and so downplay contradictory real-world observations. Some narcissistic scientists crave the attention that the media gives for predicting crises. Imitating the devious world of advertising, politicians pushing their own agenda seek out sympathetic scientists and under‑informed children to give credence and sympathy to whatever they are selling. Some junior scientists are afraid to contradict a bogus consensus even when their research suggests they should, while other climate scientists like Michel Mann hire their own PR person to sway opinions to favor their research.

Modelers too often eschew the bountiful evidence of real natural climate change when it competes with their CO2‑driven models. They downplay the myriad of critical factors that have caused change throughout history, to eliminate challenges to their belief only CO2 is the climate change control knob. Unprofessionally they denigrate all who dare question their model as deniers. But their deep love for their own models has become a fatal attraction. Not only do they try to suppress the very foundations of science and dismiss calls for further debate, they are advocating for  highly dangerous and wasteful actions to block the sun. As the Little Ice Age scholar Robert Bolton insightfully warned, “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind”. Far too many are possessed by their willing belief in a climate crisis.

Jim Steele is director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition

4.7 31 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phil Rae
April 6, 2021 6:09 am

Great article, Jim! A much-needed dose of common sense. Thanks!

Reply to  Phil Rae
April 6, 2021 6:11 am

I second that, Jim. Thanks!


Reply to  Phil Rae
April 6, 2021 8:29 am

After the short January SSW, the stratosphere is at it’s coldest (for this time of the year) since the measurements have started due to the extended low solar activitycomment image

Last edited 1 year ago by vuk
Kevin kilty
April 6, 2021 6:22 am

You have written several home run articles lately, Jim. This is another.

I would take some comfort in knowing that the present crazy behavior and beliefs possessing even some real scientists might soon right itself. Unfortunately I see no indication of such as yet.

Tom in Toronto
April 6, 2021 6:25 am

When we inadvertently trigger an end to the current interglacial and then (frantically and fruitlessly) try to pump as much CO2 as possible into the atmosphere in order to warm us up, everyone will finally agree that there are limits on how much CO2-induced warming is possible.
Some lessons have to be learned the hard way.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom in Toronto
Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 6, 2021 10:36 am

Yes, it will likely only cost 5 billion lives, necessary casualties in the great climate wars i guess.

We should all be involved in collecting evidence in the future Climate Change POLICY Crimes against Humanity Trials.

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 7, 2021 7:01 am

Dear Pat de Kerbob

<i>”Yes, it will likely only cost 5 billion lives,”</i>

I understood that that was The Plan.


Reply to  DP.
April 7, 2021 11:51 pm

a benefit not a bug.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 6, 2021 10:36 am

I personally would consider direct intervention against any scheme to cool the earth.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
April 6, 2021 10:43 am

Yes, that would be a crime against humanity.

Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 7, 2021 9:38 am

Most lessons are never learned, regardless of the way.

Nick Schroeder
April 6, 2021 6:26 am

More albedo and the Earth cools.
Less albedo and the Earth warms.
No albedo and the Earth cooks.
That is NOT what RGHE theory predicts. 

The earth is cooler with the atmosphere/albedo not warmer.

The “extra” warming energy downwelling from the GHGs originates with the surface upwelling that “extra” energy as a BB. As demonstrated by experiment, that is not possible.

If either of these points stands, greenhouse theory fails and man caused climate change collapses.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
April 6, 2021 8:16 am

I corrected one of the down votes from the luke-warmers here for you with my up vote, most of the people here are nice people, but they are idiots that believe wholeheartedly in the radiative greenhouse effect religiously.

Where i come from the ”nice” but stupid people are called w@nkers because that is what they really are.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Ashe
April 6, 2021 6:27 am

“None of these “expert opinions” have come to past. So why do some climate scientists continue to push climate crises???”

They, who control energy policy, control the world. This is where the grant money is, and where carbon taxation of various schemes will vacuum up the wealth of the West. Unfortunately, some of the climate scientists really believe their models, and experimenting with shading out some solar insolation probably makes sense to them. But I agree…it is a monstrous idea to make things cooler, as if they succeed, only misery will follow. The marginal warming we have had the last 150+ years was the best thing to happen for civilization, and a return to the cold of the LIA is a return to the dark ages. Celebrate the warmth, for it is fleeting in the scheme of things.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Earthling2
April 6, 2021 10:36 am

One small nit, it should be “come to pass!” I hesitated to correct Jim, but can’t take a repeat!

Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2021 11:58 pm

So why do some climate scientists continue to push climate crises???”
because that’s what they are PAID to do.

Not wrangle facts, but tp push the “correct” agenda.

April 6, 2021 6:44 am

Great article.

Let me add: One of the climate alarmists’ solutions to 1940s-1970s global cool down would have worsened the global warming that began in the late 1970s or 1980s. Alarmists suggested coating with dark particles (soot, pulverized coal …) snow fields and ice sheets. The dark particles would have absorbed and retained solar energy, and thereby HASTENED the disappearance of snow fields & ice sheets which alarmists now lament.

Gaia should quake when alarmists offer to help her.

Reply to  D M
April 6, 2021 7:36 am

I remember that like it was yesterday, when winters in the 1960’s &1970’s were brutal with -40 for weeks on end. Not to mention the windchill. And my Grandfather who was born in 1890 at the time said that was nothing, as he had seen colder and his father and grandfather were born in the mid+ 1800’s when things were even colder but already stating to warm up out of the LIA and things had been much colder for longer and lucky to get a crop of wheat off the prairie for the original homesteaders. I think it was the Ruskies who first proposed covering the Arctic in soot as one of their 5 year plans. Can you imagine a return of the climate of the 1690’s…our civilization would take a beating.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Earthling2
April 6, 2021 10:33 am

I grew up on the saskatchewan prairies in the 70’s, had a paper route, was awful, massive blizzards, endless deep snow to shovel, weeks long -30s.

And people basically want to take us back to that, its beyond insane

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 6, 2021 10:46 am

A bicycle paper route?

That would be real tough in deep snow.

I used to have a paper route too, when I was about 10-years-old, but did not have to deal with deep snow, thank Goodness.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 6, 2021 10:57 am

I had a morning paper route north of Boston during middle/high school in the 60s. Some mornings the snot would freeze on my nose as soon as I stepped outside. When snow and ice prevented using my bike and I had to pull a sled. Walkways were seldom shoveled after a snow which made trudging through the snow laborious to place the paper inside their storm doors. I envied paper boys in the south who could just throw the paper on the lawn.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jim Steele
April 7, 2021 11:27 am

I had very little snow to deal with in my paperboy days, but I *never* threw a newspaper on someone’s lawn. Always on the porch. And *without* banging the aluminum storm door and waking everyone up inside at 5am, with my throw! 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 6, 2021 11:34 am

I too had a paper route in Saskatchewan, but in the mid to late 1960’s. And it was -40 every night for weeks on end from time to time, especially if counting windchill although back then they didn’t really use windchill that much, as the engine block still didn’t get below -40. That sort of came with the PM Trudeau metrification at the time.

Also had a side business shovelling snow, which made it handy to mount the Star Phoenix paper bag on the back of the bike, which was usually pushed from one lot to the next instead of carrying 80 pounds of papers on your stomach/back, especially for the Saturday Weekend Extra. Tough way to make a living for a 10-12 year old kid. We were probably neighbours. Most of us moved to Alberta or BC when we got out of school. Agreed this is not only insanity, but also lunacy in trying to recreate colder weather/climate.

Reply to  Earthling2
April 7, 2021 7:13 am

That sort of came with the PM Trudeau metrification at the time.

-40F=-40C so your story works either way 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Earthling2
April 8, 2021 4:55 am

“Tough way to make a living for a 10-12 year old kid.”

That doesn’t sound pleasant at all. -40! Ouch!

Al Miller
April 6, 2021 6:46 am

My belief in the ignorance of the experts grows stronger every day!

Reply to  Al Miller
April 6, 2021 8:36 am

You really wrote experts ??? Without quotation marks ?? 😀

Eric Harpham
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 6, 2021 9:18 am

Definition of expert. Ex is a has been & a spurt is a drip under pressure.

April 6, 2021 6:57 am

Reminds me of the time a US congressionishit got so worried about the Greenhouse Effect (TM) the blighter actually demanded somebody uses an atom bomb to blow a hole in the atmosphere, so the heat can escape…
My explanation for these dumfarks? They are religious zealots, wanting to (de)terraform Earth, so their gods will return in comfort. Herewith the unashamed self-promotional link:
Well, no-one else is talking about it…

Reply to  paranoid goy
April 6, 2021 7:17 am

The complete AGW, GCC, etc is, in a certain way to compare to the Hanns Hoerbigers World Ice Theory / Glacial Cosmology.

When someone criticized his ideas, for example stating that they don’t make sense mathematically, Hörbiger responded with such statements as “Calculation can only lead you astray.” If any visual evidence was presented against his theory, the Austrian engineer dismissed such pictures, saying they were faked by “reactionary” astronomers. You know, fake news. 
In a telling answer to the rocket expert Willy Ley, Hörbiger proposed that “Either you believe in me and learn, or you will be treated as the enemy,“ according to Martin Gardner’s 1957 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science

Why HitIer and other Na z is thought the world was really made of ice
There many articles about that BS, but the nowerday state of the CC movement is to compare to the old movement.

Some samples

Steve Case
April 6, 2021 7:06 am

A lot of us remember the cooling in the early ’90s caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. My garden just north of Milwaukee had frost damage June 21st 1993. And one of those years after Pinatubo we had measurable snow in May.

People who knowingly try to alter the environment need to be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced and jailed for crimes against humanity.

April 6, 2021 7:09 am

While some ideas are really dumb, fear that small scale experimentation on the impact of aerosols will be catastrophic is irrational.

One experiment involved kg quantities of chalk dust. Let them do the experiment. They are likely to discover some truth, perhaps that our impact on climate is minuscule. Eventually, they will have to do some real world calculations.

They might come to appreciate that a single volcanic eruption can, in a matter of weeks, undo a century of warming and more.

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Scissor
April 6, 2021 7:27 am

The mere thought is stupid. And like small-scale nuclear weapon tests, the point is getting a proof-of-concept that can be applied on larger and larger scales (as desired). The ultimate goal isn’t a secret.

Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 6, 2021 11:00 am

It’s not that stupid. Whether intentional or not, our activities generate aerosols that can have an impact on weather, climate and health, etc.

I’m coming at it from the perspective that it is better to do some preliminary small scale experiments, gather data and perhaps learn something about reality. This is better than just modeling.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Scissor
April 6, 2021 8:12 am

Your strawman argument is both irrational and dumb.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 6, 2021 11:22 am

There’s no strawman there. One proposed experiment involves the release of a kg or two of calcium carbonate from a balloon. I see the value in doing some experiments in order to gain knowledge. There’s more to the story than Bill Gates funding and geoengineering.

The effect on reaction of calcium carbonate on ozone depleting chemicals is also part of the study. The results could improve atmospheric chemists’ understanding of several processes that it is to our benefit to know more about.

Jets and other high altitude vehicles produce aerosols at altitude and knowing about fundamental properties and processes that can be measured experimentally will be beneficial in the long run.

Reply to  Scissor
April 6, 2021 9:38 am

You know the story about the freezing camel?
“Yo, boss, it’s cold out here, can I just put my poor, cold, cold nose inside the tent?” Sure!
“Hey, boss, I’m so cold, my shoulder is going stiff, mind if I just hold my chest inside the tent?” Sure! ..and so on and so on until the family woke up to a tent full of camel poop…
But you sure make for a good example of a troll giving us the ole biki-biki-baya excuse….
Tell you what, lend me your girlfriend, I’ll only make her a little bit pregnant!
I got other suggestions equally stupid, but I could never compete with Baal Gates. Or the dweeps who worship his filthy little backside.
Summation: It’s a farkin stupid and dangerous idea, okay?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Scissor
April 6, 2021 10:41 am

Your comments are usually intelligent and insightful, but expecting Climastrologists to perceive or admit the insanity of their theories or solutions is pushing the frontiers of optimism!

Reply to  Abolition Man
April 6, 2021 11:55 am

Thanks, I appreciate the kind comment.

My boss was one of the reviewers for the NAS report. I’ve only read the preamble and would just point out that they are very cognizant of risks and have called for caution. I now plan to read the complete report.

Anyway, I value experiments highly and my passion to experiment is one reason that I became a scientist. I was making pretty powerful explosives in my garage as a young teen and I still have my eyesight and all of my fingers, so I’m not totally negligent when it comes to risk, however.

April 6, 2021 7:09 am

Masterminds see no limit to their brilliance and are blind to their own ignorance. This makes them dangerous, and potentially evil.

April 6, 2021 7:30 am

“Other researchers found more than 13 category‑2 or stronger hurricanes per century hit the Bahamas between 1500 to 1670 AD, compared to just 9+ per century since 1850 AD.”

Per century? Per decade, surely?

April 6, 2021 7:37 am

These were the same protozoa brains that were advocating spraying soot all over the north pole in the early 1970s. At least that one was somewhat reversible.

Reply to  shrnfr
April 6, 2021 8:20 am

That was going to gigatons of soot, and gigatons of something to burn to make the soot…..so it did not proceed past the back-of-napkin-calculation stage.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 7, 2021 5:29 am

And then, after spraying, it starts to snow…

Clyde Spencer
April 6, 2021 7:50 am


You quoted, “A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind”.

Required reading in my undergraduate geology curriculum was T. C. Chamberlain’s, The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. I’m curious if it was just certain majors, or the times in which we lived. Was Chamberlain’s paper part of your undergraduate reading?

Jim Steele
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 6, 2021 8:43 am

It was taught to geology majors but certainly not required in ecology. As an ecologist trying understand changes in the Sierra Nevada, it was clear multiple working hypotheses were a must and clarity would take decades and more.

April 6, 2021 8:11 am

We don’t need to waste money on trying to cool the planet. When the current state of the jet stream across the globe is likely to do the job for us. lts gone into LIA mode.

Reply to  taxed
April 6, 2021 12:29 pm

I hope we don’t experience another LIA. if we do I would much rather nature cool us down rather than mad scientists funded by a mad billionaire.

April 6, 2021 8:17 am

Pygmalion reminds me of the movie Lars and the real girl. Lars avoids personal relationships and develops one with a plastic girl, who is quite good looking. The town is advised to go along with Lars to the point of accepting the plastic girl. In the end the plastic girl dies and Lars gets the real girl..

The climate crisis is like Lars who avoid recognizing a period of good climate and make up their own climate. And like Lars they won’t be satisfied until the worse happens to justify their errors. Unlike Las who only punished himself the climate folks would punish us all.

Human population and lifetime is at an all time high with less hardship then ever in history and some want to change that.

April 6, 2021 8:39 am

This is an excellent summary of the serious problem posed by geoengineering. I have actively opposed this in a string of correspondence with the Harvard group, and that correspondence follows:

4 March 2021

Dear Dr. Keutsch,

Thank you for the detailed response to my email of 20 Dec 2020.

Your proposed geoengineering test will have no effect on my 32-year atmospheric monitoring program. However, that is not my point, for your study is designed to determine the feasibility of creating an artificial global aerosol layer to cool the planet. I don’t know the AOD that will be required for a significant global temperature reduction (e.g. ~1 C), but it will need to be significantly higher than 0.0034 at 20 km for your initial test. And, yes. A global aerosol layer will indeed lighten the color of the sky. It will also cause prolonged and possibly colorful twilights. It might even alter the polarization of the sky enough to impact bird migration.

Attached is a chart showing the AOD I measured at or near solar noon on days without clouds at the sun from 4 Feb 1990 to 4 Feb 2020. This chart is included in a paper about the first 30 years of my monitoring program. (The measured AOD is for 824 nm with the same instrument all 30 years, The AOD at 824 nm is roughly half that at 500 nm.) The paper is now under review at Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (which has published 2 of my prior papers). My measurement series will soon exceed the length of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory’s series for AOD and total water vapor at Table Mountain, California (1926-1957).

Please note that my series began 16.5 months prior to the 15 June 1991 eruption of Pinatubo. Thus, my data provide the volcano’s impact on AOD (and total water vapor and ozone) and the recovery. You can see that the AOD required for a 1 C temperature reduction is much greater than will be produced by your forthcoming test.

(The paper submitted to BAMS is for the first 30 years, which matches the newly announced WMO weather climatology.)


Texas and neighboring States experienced historic freezing weather for a week in February. Some 24 people died. Travel was nearly impossible and schools and businesses were closed. Basic commodities were quickly sold out when grocers reopened. Because of nearly universal power outages, many homes experienced major water damage due to bursting pipes that froze. Many cacti, agave and palm trees died. Lawn grass died. One report claims that up to 20% of native conifers died. Flower buds on native agarita froze and fell off, thereby leaving behind none of the red berries birds love to eat. As for birds, our local paper reported blue birds freezing to death in their nesting houses. 

Had the geoengineers successfully injected a Pinatubo equivalent of SO2 or other scattering agency into our skies prior to this historic event, the freeze would have been both deeper and longer. The scientists, modelers and engineers responsible would now be the target of massive, fully justifiable legal and political actions.


Your entire project is justified solely on model predictions. The IPCC AR5 (for which I was an expert reviewer), featured 40 charts from GCMs. 39 of those charts were significantly wrong. Furthermore, AR5 specifically stated that global total water vapor must increase with CO2: “With every extra degree of air temperature, the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water vapour . . .. This increase in concentration amplifies the greenhouse effect, and therefore leads to more warming.” (Myhre et al. IPCC, 2013).

However, total water vapor over my site has not increased in 32 years. Instead, it is virtually flat (with a very slight decrease). My data are not unique, for large areas of the US and China have experienced flat or declining water vapor over decades. NASA’s NVAP-M study found no global trend in water vapor from 1988 to 2010. As for temperature, the cleaning of the air over Europe (by the closure of coal-fired power plants) has caused from 50 to 70% of the warming there over the past decade or so. The same holds for my site, for the AOD has declined significantly (see attached chart) since coal-fired plants were closed across Texas and the Tennessee and Ohio Valleys (From where our air is often transported).


I cannot fault the analysis you reported in your email. It’s certainly comprehensive. I was glad to see you included University of Wyoming balloon findings, a project begun by the late David Hofmann. (I met some of his Wyoming colleagues when we were in Brazil for NASA and INPE during SCAR-B. After he was assigned to NOAA, Hofmann assigned me to write “Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory: 50 Years of Monitoring the Atmosphere”(Univ. of Hawaii Press, 2012)).

I would have liked to have seen some data from John Barnes’ lidar at MLO. John taught me how to use this complex instrument, and I’ve conducted parallel sessions of lidar and twilight photometers to measure the elevation of aerosols over MLO. Aside from occasional Asian dust, the main aerosol layer measured at MLO is the Junge sulfate layer, which is usually just above your planned 20 km experiment.

But the real missing ingredient in SCoPEx is the failure to independently validate the alarmist claims of the IPCC and its boosters. The second edition of the excellent NAS booklet “On Being a Scientist” had an excellent section of the vital role of skepticism in doing science. All that was omitted from the third edition, and it’s also omitted from your project.

Best regards,  


Forrest M. Mims III 
“One of the 50 best brains in science.” Discover magazine.

—–Original Message—–
From: Keutsch, Frank N <keutsch@seas.harvard.edu>
To: fmims <fmims@aol.com>; Keith, David <david_keith@harvard.edu>; johnd@huarp.harvard.edu <johnd@huarp.harvard.edu>
Sent: Wed, Mar 24, 2021 6:17 am
Subject: Re: Your geoengineering will ruin my stratospheric monitoring

Dear Forrest Mims,
Apologies for my slow response to your emails. It is not because we do not appreciate your concern, but because we are still not close to a flight that actually would inject any aerosol. I wanted to wait until we had rigorous results from the model of the SCoPEx plume evolution, so we have a quantitative response for you. I first give a brief summary: The optical depth of the plume produced at some point in the future is 0.0034. The plume (at 20km altitude) would have a width of about 20m at a length of 1km which corresponds to 1mrad by about 50mrad solid angle equivalent above an observer at the ground. The plume would be moving with about 1-5 m s-1 relative to the ground so it will shift by 1 mrad in 20 seconds or less. The plume would disperse in hours.
A detailed response is below but let state again that we fully appreciate your concern. The question of how “white” the sky would become under a stratospheric geoengineering is one of many concerns about stratospheric geoengineering deployment. However, the SCoPEx experiment is not a climate change/geoengineering experiment but rather a process level study and plans to only use an amount of particles (<2kg) which is equivalent to particles from one minute of a 747 flight. I also want to state that I am pursuing this research not because I am an advocate of stratospheric geoengineering deployment, but rather as I am extremely concerned that decision makers will consider it in the future and if we don’t start doing research now, it will be too late. As you know research takes a long time.
Please let us know if the very small added aerosol optical depth over a very limited spatial and temporal extent presents a problem.
Best Regards,
Frank Keutsch
Here the more detailed analysis:
We have performed a quantitative analysis of the optical signature of the SCoPEx plume by an observer on the ground based on a published study of the aerosol dynamics of the SCoPEx experiment (Golja et al. JGR 2021, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033438). The data from this publication are available for download from the Harvard Dataverse. The open access manuscript contains information for downloading should you wish to perform an independent analysis.
Our analysis takes a parametric approach to allow easy investigation into different choices about viewing geometry and observer location. It is assumed that calcite spherical particles of radius 0.25 micron are injected into the SCoPEx propeller wake at an injection rate of 0.1 g s-1 while the gondola is propelled at an airspeed of 1 m s-1. We assume an observer is located directly underneath the propeller wake, which is located at an altitude of 20 km above ground level. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume the propeller wake has a fully formed radius of 20 m, and that it extends as a uniform cylinder for a distance of 1 km. In reality, as can be seen from figure 1 of the publication cited above, the cylinder radius increases with distance from the propellers, and the distribution of particles in not uniform (figure 6 of the publication).
Within this simplified framework, the optical parameters of the plume may be calculated from tabulated data for calcite density and index of refraction (1.57+0.0001*i). We find that the volume scattering coefficient (calcite has negligible absorption at 532 nm so the extinction and scattering are nearly identical) for the plume is 0.084 km-1. Integrating this along a line of sight at the centerline of the plume, we find a total optical depth of 0.0034 (noting that the away from the centerline, the geometric extent of the plume along the line of sight will be reduced as the corresponding chord of the cylinder decreases in length, reducing the optical depth below 0.0034). This is comparable to the low end of mid-latitude total stratospheric optical depth we find in our analysis of the U. Wyoming balloon borne optical particle counter data during the low aerosol loadings occurring between 1998 and 2003. The plume subtends an angle of 1 mrad for a ground-based observer in the direction perpendicular to the cylinder’s axis, and subtends an angle of 50 mrad in the direction along the cylinder’s axis. The ground speed of the plume will be in the range of 1-5 m s-1, depending on the prevailing meteorology, so that the geographical location of the occluded sky will have moved 1 plume radius in 20 seconds or less (for winds perpendicular to the cylinder axis). If the wind is perfectly parallel to the cylinder axis, and winds are light, it will take about 17 minutes to completely transit out of its initial location.
Particle radius
0.25 µm
Radius of maximum scattering efficiency per mass
Particle density
2.71 g cm-3
Particle volume
0.065 µm3
Assuming spherical particles
Injection rate
0.1 g s-1
Airspeed during injection
1 m s-1
High airspeeds lead to less optically dense plumes
Plume radius
20 m
Radius at 750 m behind propellers from CFD
Aerosol mass density
1.99×10-5 g m-3
Total mass of aerosol/(volume of air mass containing aerosol)
Scattering efficiency
From Mie theory and tabulated index of refraction at 532 nm
Scattering cross section
0.75 µm2
Assuming spherical particles
Scattering mass coefficient
4.22 m2 g-1
Scattering cross section per particle/(mass per particle)
Scattering coefficient
0.084 km-1
Scattering mass coefficient times aerosol mass density
Optical depth
Scattering coefficient times path length
Subtended angle
0.001 rad
For the radial dimension of the plume at 20 km above observer
Frank N. Keutsch
Stonington Professor of Engineering and Atmospheric Science
Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences 
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Harvard University
12 Oxford Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
From: fmims <fmims@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, December 20, 2020 at 11:17 PM
To: “Keutsch, Frank N” <keutsch@seas.harvard.edu>, “Keith, David” <david_keith@harvard.edu>, “Litchfield, Michael P.” <litch@g.harvard.edu>, “yshyur@g.harvard.edu” <yshyur@g.harvard.edu>, “johnd@huarp.harvard.edu” <johnd@huarp.harvard.edu>, “eburns@g.harvard.edu” <eburns@g.harvard.edu>, SEAS Dean <dean@seas.harvard.edu>, “McCullough, Richard” <richard_mccullough@harvard.edu>
Cc: Forrest Mims <fmims@aol.com>
Subject: Your geoengineering will ruin my stratospheric monitoring
20 Dec 2020
Please forward this email in its entirety to Louise Bedsworth, Executive Director of the SCoPEx Advisory Committee, and the committee’s members.
Your project could lead to a global aerosol blanket that will cause serious environmental effects should a Pinatubo-scale volcanic eruption or a nuclear war occur after its implementation. Your project will also seriously impair ongoing measurements, including mine, of the atmosphere’s optical depth around the world.
On 4 Feb 2021 I will have achieved 31 years of observations of aerosol optical depth, total column water vapor and total column ozone over my site in Central Texas (Geronimo Creek Atmospheric Monitoring Station). I am presently writing a paper on the first 30 years, a climatology second in length only to the 31 years of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1926 to 1957 at Table Mountain, CA, which my site will match on 4 Feb 2021.
Your project will also strongly impact my twilight photometry project (2013 to present) that measures the elevation of aerosols from a few km to 170 km. This project routinely profiles aerosol layers within the troposphere (smoke, dust, sulfate pollution, etc.), stratosphere (the Junge SO2 layer, volcanic aerosols and occasional major forest fire residuals) and thermosphere (meteoric smoke/dust). I am accumulating a climatology of these aerosol layers or publication.
You are clearly planning a geoengineering means for alleviating warming, but you have no contingency plan should a major Pinatubo-class volcanic eruption occur or should a nuclear war occur. Adding your dust veil to these kinds of events could cause enormous environmental damage.
Meanwhile, you have failed to adequately answer my questions sent before and resent below. Yes, I will be able to monitor the changes in optical depth caused by your calcium carbonate or whatever else with which you plan to pollute the stratosphere. I will also be able to detect the elevation of your aerosol veil. But how will I discriminate between what is natural and what you have artificially created?
Please make my concerns known to your funding agencies as soon as possible. And please provide a specific response to my concerns. Spending an enormous sum on your project may provide income for you, your staffs and your contractors, but I hope this is why I can find no evidence that you have apparently failed to seriously consider analyzing ongoing volcanic events to provide the data you seek. (Online searches of your group and “Raikoke” return this: Missing: raikoke ‎|). I proposed this to you before (see Raikoke notes below). Have you followed through on this suggestion for Raikoke, which provided near-global coverage of sunlight reducing SO2? If not, why not?
I look forward to a detailed reply,
Best regards,
Forrest M. Mims III
One of the “50 best brains in science.” Discover magazine
From: Forrest
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 8:46 PM
To: keutsch@seas.harvard.edudavid_keith@harvard.edulitch@g.harvard.eduyshyur@g.harvard.edujohnd@huarp.harvard.edueburns@g.harvard.edudean@seas.harvard.edurichard_mccullough@harvard.edu
Cc: Forrest
Subject: Objections to the SCoPEx Geoengineering Project
6 August 2020
Thank you for your willingness to consider public objections to your proposed stratospheric geoengineering experiments.
Today I submitted a letter to scopexac.com regarding the apparent absence of any consideration by your organization of one of the largest volcanic stratospheric injections since Pinatubo on 15 June 1991. I refer to the Raikoke eruption of 21-22 June 2019. This event could likely eliminate the need for your tampering with stratospheric aerosols while preserving the measurement of natural aerosols from contamination by your experiments and implementation of what you indirectly propose.
Please inform me if the Raikoke eruption has been reviewed by your team. As noted in my post today to your site (please see below), I measured the altitude of the Raikoke aerosol cloud over Texas on 51 clear evenings using 3 twilight photometers of my design (paper in preparation). The plume over my Texas site reached 26 km one evening and a similar altitude at the Mauna Loa Observatory (lidar). I began this work in 2013 at the Mauna Loa Observatory with my own private funds, and I have never requested funding for the project. Surely your team must by now have looked at the Raikoke event, for it may eliminate the need for your well-financed experiment(s).
I am a consultant for a major university (manager of a USDA UV-B/PAR/ozone) site and understand how universities are often so constantly looking for project funds that the receipt of such funds becomes more important than the project. Unless you have carefully studied the Raikoke event, I hardly see how you can justify your forthcoming geoengineering experiment(s).
On 5 Feb 2020, my near-daily observations of the atmosphere’s optical depth and the total column ozone and water vapor reached 30 years, which is a climatological mean, the gold standard of atmospheric observations. Your project threatens this research. If geoengineering is fully deployed, the monitoring of natural aerosols in the stratosphere will be seriously contaminated.
I have no idea if any of you are qualified atmospheric scientists and what papers you have published. (You can find some of my papers at Google Scholar and  http://www.forrestmims.org).
Forgive me if I have missed this. If not, you should promptly supplement your web site by adding biographical information about each member of your team. Unpaid and paid undergrad and grad student and post-doc participation should also be listed.
Do any of these participants have direct experience measuring stratospheric aerosols using balloons, lidar and/or the twilight method? Have they published their findings? If not, why not?
Below is the letter I sent to your website today.
Submitted to https://scopexac.com/societal-review/
6 August 2020 (12:28 CDT)
Previously I have strongly opposed your plan to inject aerosols into the stratosphere along a path in line with my twilight measurements of aerosols in the upper atmosphere. I write to ask if you have considered a study of the eruption plume of Raikoke (22 Jun 2019), an ideal natural aerosol cloud within the stratosphere? This enormous plume was far better suited for your study than artificial injection of aerosols. Consider that on 51 evenings my measurements of the elevation of the Raikoke plume over Central Texas ranged from 15 to 26 km. John Barnes, former director of the Mauna Loa Observatory, and I wrote a paper for the canceled IEEE remote sensing conference on our respective Raikoke measurements over MLO (with John’s lidar) and mine.
This event was among the strongest since the 1991 Pinatubo eruption. It was also far, far greater in magnitude than your proposed injection. Rather than spend considerable funds on a potentially dangerous geoengineering project that will ruin measurements of natural aerosols in the stratosphere, I propose that you divert your research to a detailed analysis of the Raikoke event. I will be glad to provide my data, and I am sure John will also be glad to provide his MLO lidar data. I should point out that Calipso’s lidar measurements from orbit are not nearly as sensitive to very thin aerosol layers as are my twilight measurements. I look forward to your response.
Forrest M. Mims III
One of the “50 best brains in science.” Discovery magazine.

Jim Steele
Reply to  Forrest M. Mims III
April 6, 2021 9:37 am

Thanks for these added details Forrest

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Forrest M. Mims III
April 6, 2021 8:39 pm

Thanks for sharing your correspondence. I found it personally interesting because I know Frank. He was gracious enough to instrumentally analyze some polished ore-mounts of sulfosalts (geocronite), confirming their identification for me to support work I have been doing on the complex refractive index of opaque minerals. He is a physicist, but I think that his first love is mineralogy.

I informed him a couple of years ago that there was some concern about his proposed experiment, and he acknowledged that he was aware of the concerns. However, as I’m sure you are aware, there are considerable pressures on career academics to bring in grant money and publish research.

April 6, 2021 8:48 am

Solar geoengineering would be Jurassic Park STUPID because it would work.

Taking dinosaurs off this island is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Mike Maguire
April 6, 2021 8:59 am

Wonderful article Jim………..thanks very much!


This is one of the most retarded ideas in history. We are currently enjoying a Climate Optimum by all authentic scientific standards for life on this massively greening planet. Cold still kills hundreds of times more life than excessive heat does.
The crisis, exists in 2 realms.
1. A make believe, computer simulated world going out 100 years based on global climate model solutions that have been proven to be too warm for 30 years.
2. An exaggerated, twisted interpretation of every extreme weather event(almost all of which have happened before) that blames much of it on man made climate change………….when almost all of it is natural. Even extreme cold and snow are being caused by global warming, according to the theory.

They used those bogus reasons for 3 decades, with the gate keepers having almost complete control of the false narratives, repeating them over and over and over…………while censoring anything with authentic science that proves it wrong……………and that’s how you win the political war that hijacked climate science to accomplish its agenda.
And the war has been won by that side………it’s over. Now we get to witness the imposing of HORRIBLE agenda that includes increasing carbon taxes on all forms of fossil fuel energy(consumers pay out the wazoo) as well as taking away tens of thousands of US jobs and the US no longer being energy independent. 

The other thing that makes this a very retarded idea based on basic biology is that the sun is the source for all energy and life on this planet which uses CO2 as the building block of life. Bill Gates and others, in a climate optimum, want to cut off life from some of the source of all life/energy(sun) so that they can lower the amount of the beneficial gas-building block of life, CO2.

April 6, 2021 10:00 am

I wonder if these geniuses will be able to get liability insurance for their scheme. 😉 Probably not.

Pat from Kerbob
April 6, 2021 10:22 am

As communication and indoctrination is important, it is interesting to see hollywood movies that explore the idea that human geo-engineering to “solve” the CO2 climate crisis end up destroying the world.

Its all hollywood BS, but for those who only get exposed to ideas in this manner, this is a good sign.

Message changing

Abolition Man
April 6, 2021 10:31 am

Great post again, Jim!
Having had the honor and pleasure of dating several models, including two that did regular work for Victoria’s Secret, I can understand scientists becoming enamored with their models!

That being said, it is frightening to think that a bunch of the practitioners of Scientism would give weight to their own, self-created models and ignore evidence that our climate changes in cycles and what we are now experiencing is in any way out of the ordinary! These modern day Lysenkoists give greater credence to their quasi-religious beliefs than they do to scientists who disagree with them! When you couple that with leaders and scientists who are completely indifferent to human freedom and prosperity, there is cause for great concern!

It is quite sad in one sense, but we have to hope fo is that Mother Nature hits humanity with a few bombshells before these Progressive idiots can implement their stupidity and do major or long lasting damage to the environment! How ironic that the greatest danger to Mankind and the environment would be those claiming to be environmentalists!

Joel O'Bryan
April 6, 2021 10:36 am

Junior faculty, needing departmental support for their grant apps and the tenure that comes with successful grantees, are silenced for certain by the senior faculty who are reputationally invested in the the Climate Hoax (CH).

Not only that, but even upstream of the junior faculty member having his/her own contradictory results, the faculty hiring process itself weeds out anyone who might disagree with them down the road, i.e. anyone who is not totally bought into the CH. A self-reinforcing ideological control of who surrounds them is created.

It is a completely corrupted process that is destroying the the science departments now, the rent seeking behavior and reputational protection, while tossing the process of science under the bus.

Professor Lindzen has it correct when he opined that US government funding for climate research needs about a 90% cut to clear out the rot.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 6, 2021 11:55 am

Perhaps if the Data Quality Act would have been enforced all these years, some of these rent seeking ‘climate scientists’ would have paid more attention to the data they were inputting, or adjusting. Problem is, the EPA were part of the problem.


Last edited 1 year ago by Earthling2
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 6, 2021 8:44 pm

You are right over the target!

April 6, 2021 10:38 am

new report from the National Academies of Sciences recommended the United States pursue a robust research program into solar geoengineering, to reflect sunlight and forestall some of the worst effects of global warming

I wonder if their efforts to reflect sunlight (via the reflective aerosols dispersed into the stratosphere and artificially created marine clouds in the troposphere) will cause a global reduction in the efficiency of Photovoltaics?

Seems like that would further weaken the capabilities of “renewable” energy generation. At least from the perspective of solar panel conversion.

Similarly, wouldn’t this sort of cloud cover and general heat mitigation also affect the global wind patterns? Whether that be a net reduction or increase in wind speeds, who can say for sure?

This does just seem to me, at first glance, to be a solution in search of a problem.

David Hoopman
April 6, 2021 12:17 pm

Back before I retired and had to deal daily with the threats posed by people wanting to “do something” about Earth’s climate, I used to ask people, apropos geoengineering a reduction of the planet’s temperature, “What if we tried something like that and it worked?” Hardly anybody ever seemed to get it,

April 6, 2021 12:43 pm

At last. My suggestion of injecting Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the earth is becoming a reality. I knew it wouldn’t be long before someone would recommend doing it.

After all, all right thinking people are committed to saving the earth, so those that don’t want to save the earth have now been exposed.

Reply to  Doonman
April 7, 2021 5:51 am


April 6, 2021 2:27 pm

Program on America and the Global Economy
Science and Technology Innovation Program
Environmental Change and Security Program

As geoengineering becomes a more politically and technologically appealing approach to addressing climate change, it is critical to heed the lessons of history and understand the limits of our control over nature, said James Fleming of Colby College. Speaking at the launch of his new book, Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control, at the Wilson Center on October 6, Fleming brought what he called a “historically informed view of the humanities” to a growing policy discussion: the possibility of using geoengineering as a “quick fix” for the problem of climate change.

Fixing the Sky: The Checkered History of Weather and Climate Control – YouTube

April 6, 2021 3:01 pm

The tropical oceans have warm pools that are temperature limited to 30C. The process is the result of cloudburst to inject vast quantities of moisture high in that atmosphere resulting in initial heavy precipitation then persistent cirrus cloud while ice crystals deposit due to high level cooling from the initial saturated condition. When the surface temperature is 30C, there is 10.4mm of water vapour above the freezing level that takes up to 38 hours to deposit to form reflective cloud while creating the convective potential for the next cloudburst.

Climate models parameterise clouds so the models do not have physical representation of clouds tied to the surface temperature. This results in one of the most obvious flaws where predictions of tropical ocean surface temperature far exceed what is possible. Australia’s CSIRO are predicting ocean surface temperature of 41C in the Nino34 region by 2300. To get that result and maintain a warming trend, I realised they had to cool the past quite dramatically. The attached chart compares CSIRO model hindcast for the Nino34 region based on CMIP5 input with the NOAA/NCEP measured data for the region.

Although different scales it is clear the averages are 3 degrees Kelvin apart with the CSIRO averaging 297K (24C). An El Nino event is indicated by the surface temperature in this region exceeding 28C (301K). It is apparent that the CSIRO model has removed the possibility for the 1998 El Nino. Charts taken directly from KNMI Climate Explorer.

Gunga Din
April 6, 2021 3:16 pm

“A new report from the National Academies of Sciences recommended the United States pursue a robust research program into solar geoengineering, to reflect sunlight and forestall some of the worst effects of global warming.”

Why spend more money on research?
“The science is settled!”
Just launch a bunch of the nukes we’ve already paid for and cause a “Nuclear Winter”. (The big scare when I was a kid.)
You don’t want to target another country and start a “Wargames” ending?
Target Yosemite then let “nature take it’s course”.
What could go wrong with a “return to nature”?

April 6, 2021 3:18 pm

So how does radiative atmospheric cooling work for this “renewable” bit of engineering. ?? Seriously?!


William Haas
April 6, 2021 3:57 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Climate change is happening so slowly that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We should be careful not to mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So decreasing CO2 emissions will have no effect on climate. But even if we could somehow stop the earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated so there is no benefit to be realized. Mankind does not even know what the optimum global climate is let alone how to achieve it. “scientists” must first establish what the optimum global climate actually is before any action is taken to try to change it..

April 6, 2021 6:22 pm

Don’t be so alarmist. What could possibly go wrong?

Gary Pearse
April 6, 2021 7:12 pm

An another ‘keeper’ from Jim Steele summing up what the science used to know about climate.The best way to understand the climate wroughters’ urgency for initiating geoengineering, anti fossil fuel policies, criminalizing dissent and the constant end -of -world world hyperbole, is that proponents have had their faith in their science deeply shaken by one setback after another: warming forecasts that proved to be 300% too high as actual observations revealed over time – this despite the egregious altering of historical temperature series to augment the warming; a two decade ‘Dreaded Pause’ in temperature rise while 40% more CO2 was being added to the atmosphere and now a 5 year cooling trend that may become deep enough to become an extension of the earlier Pause; the failure of every other prediction – ice-free Arctic, declining snowpack and even snow itself being a thing of the past, 100s of millions of climate refugees, submerged island and river delta nations; mass extinctions (with no bodies as yet) etc. The Great Greening of the planet and burgeoning harvests are, so far, the only palpable sign of manmade climate change and it is a huge benefit that plays havoc with the “costs of carbon.

The real panic under it all is the fear of abject failure by catastrophic warming ‘proponents’ because their science seems be turning out to be horribly wrong despite the fixes and continual shifting of goalposts. They know that on their heads will be the trillions of dollars spent on a potential non-problem and its corollary the countless deaths impoverishment, and misallocation of resources caused by destruction of economies, livelihoods, trippling of energy costs and the like arising from their work.

They are desperate to get ahead of the parade to take credit for a potential cooling that may just be descending on us.

April 6, 2021 10:33 pm

With these people, next will be… “All abord for Snowpiercer.”

Eric Vieira
April 7, 2021 12:51 am

No person, country or organisation (UN) has the right to “play God” with our planet.

April 7, 2021 7:47 am

What could possibly go wrong? Oh. Wait. You tell us.

I’m reminded of every sci fi movie ever with some scientist saying “Who could have forseen this?” upon misapplication of their pet project.

April 7, 2021 9:37 am


%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights