UAH Global Temperature Update for October, 2023: +0.93 deg. C

   Since, in this comment section on the latest, record-high satellite temperature
readings of the surface of the entire planet, there have been several lines of wildly
irresponsible propaganda introduced against it, I’d like to throw out some comments in
support of the “solar radiation modification” (SRM) technology now being offered by many
knowledgeable people as a (very) viable geoengineering solution to the “problem” of global
(really, mostly northern hemisphere) warming. Merely as an example, see,
https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/, but not in any way endorsed by me in
many of its details.

   The first thing one must ask is: is this a real problem given the small amounts of
global warming the earth has experienced in the last 400 years, even though that amount is
now somewhat accelerating. Under the present circumstances of the worldwide tulipmania
hysteria regarding global warming, I refuse to address the issue of whether it is a real
problem needing immediate remedy or not. It is clear, at least to me, that there has been
too little serious, significant scientific work produced to even understand this current
warming trend, much less to counteract it. The insane war on fossil fuels as an energy
source combined with the idea that global warming is caused by the utterly insignificant
CO2 levels of our atmosphere are both so preposterous (and the former, so expensive) as not
to even warrant comment, much less to be deemed “scientific”. I personally believe that
this current warming of the earth (that is, the SURFACE of the earth, where all our
weather/climate means something to us humans living on it) is being primarily caused by the
anthropogenic pollution of our oceans, but I hardly have solid evidence to back up this
belief.

   We know SRM (the intentional seeding of our upper atmosphere with some sort of haze to
partially “block” sunlight — actually, what the haze does is convert visible light and
infrared radiation to heat at high altitudes, forcing that heat energy to convect upwards
and inevitably into outer space (through radiation), rather than continuing down on its
journey to reach the surface of the earth) can work in reducing the earth’s temperature
because we can refer to so many instances in our geological past, going back millions of
years, at least, where an upper atmospheric haze has indeed caused exactly such cooling to
happen (and this was accomplished by the completely out-of-control, random forces of
nature). We have so many definitive examples just of volcanic eruptions doing just this
that the idea that it can’t be done is ludicrous. And when it is monitored and controlled
by modern man’s technology, there is absolutely no chance of it being uncontrollably
“quantized” — of course it could be done with controlled increments of any amount desired.
And it therefore doesn’t have to be done “quickly”.

   As far as such controlled cooling reaching an uncontrolled tipping point (cooling
produces ice which reflects sunlight which cools some more which produces still more
reflective ice, and so on) is concerned, are you serious? Such ice ages of our past
involved the build-up of spreading ice sheets 1000’s of feet high. This required 100’s of
years, at least, and very rarely happened at all in the southern hemisphere. Long before
that occurred in our present world, the simple spreading of black soot on unwanted ice by man
at the start of summer could easily put an end to such a remote possibility. Indeed, as
long as intelligent man continues to exist on this earth (admittedly, a distinctly low
probability event — but then again, if man goes out of existence SRM will be the least of
our problems!), ice ages are a thing of the past. Any black powder spread on forming ice
sheets by air, over the crucial interval of time, as defined by Milankovich cycles, would
easily solve the problem of them growing too big and producing ice ages for all time to
come. And, come to think of it, what about the negative feedback mechanism of a cooling
earth causing less water vapor to be in our air thus forming less clouds thus causing more
sunlight to reach the surface of the earth and thereby causing the earth to warm?

   Of course, human SRM would be designed to affect tropical regions far more than those
at higher latitudes, so the fear of the loss of photosynthesis is highly speculative, and
could be monitored to stop the project if noted. The limiting factor for plant life on
Earth is CO2 and water availability, not light availability (remember, plants evolved in
the deep past not only at higher CO2 conditions but also at lower solar irradiance
conditions, and, if anything, are getting more light than they need right now, and, in any
event, if they needed more this could always be corrected by moving farms to lower
latitutes, among other methodologies). And the self-limiting nature of suspended
particulate matter (or liquid aerosols) in the air (due to the ever-presence of gravity)
means anything we did to further SRM would automatically be self-limiting over time, as
that suspended matter inevitably descended to the surface of the earth. Furthermore, once
cooled, the earth would probably need little maintenance cooling thereafter.

   The actual particulate matter used could be one of a number of benign substances, such
as sodium bicarbonate, and the estimated cost of spreading it from 30,000 feet or so, in a
continuous operation running from near the equator using swarms of AI-controlled, unmanned,
aerial vehicles, would be microscopic compared to the trillions of dollars already wasted
on fossil fuel limitation/replacement philosophies. This is why so many global warming
wackadoodles hate SRM so much and promulgate such sophomoric propaganda against it. SRM
makes them look like fools for advocating solar/wind technologies to cool the planet. Most
people have already figured it out — the global warming hysteria is a human-hating creed
designed to destroy and subjugate people, not a benign force to make our lives better.

David Solan