Geoengineering - White House proposes blocking sunlight to fight global warming: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The White House recently announced that it was funding a five-year research plan for a controversial proposal to fight climate change by geoengineering — i.e., technologies and processes that can be used to artificially modify the Earth's climate.

This research would be dedicated specifically to a form of geoengineering known as "solar radiation management," which involves spraying fine aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The hope is that, once the sunlight is reflected, less heat will be generated, and ergo temperatures will go down. Presto: actual anthropogenic climate change! A global SPF 100, as it were!

The research reportedly will attempt to model how solar radiation management might impact the atmosphere, as well as assess its viability as a potential technique to be employed to "manage near-term climate risk."

They're hoping to fight the scourge of climate change by blindly trying to change the climate? What is it with Democrats? They're also fighting racism with racial quotas and making race the primary consideration in, well, everything. That's working well, isn't it? Next, they'll propose fighting drug abuse by giving out free needles and crack pipes. Oh wait, they're already doing that. Why haven't they yet suggested we combat STDs by having indiscriminate sex with as many other people as possible?

Now they're going to "cancel" the sun, without which life on Earth would be impossible? What could go wrong?!

And would this be a unilateral decision? "Hope the rest of you guys don't mind, but we're blocking the sun! Oops, we didn't expect that! Our bad. Sorry, might be a bit chillier than we'd like for a while!"

Not sure I agree, I’ve heard criticism of the geoengineering from very mainstream pro-AGW scientists. I think if enough of them raise concerns, Bill Gates will be overruled. But I am realistic enough to recognize that your interpretation could prove correct. The main point is, geoengineering schemes have been proposed in the past and abandoned because of fears of over-correction, not because they threatened the AGW CC theories. For example, damming the Bering Straits has been proposed to keep warm Pacific currents from reaching the southern Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. It was rejected on the basis that it could lead to a perpetual freeze of those waters and this would endanger various economic and military interests.

This reduction of incoming solar radiation scheme may not strike as many scientists as dangerous, but if there’s any more than about a third of the mainstream pro-AGW types with concerns, then I think it won’t fly. That doesn’t mean of course that a rogue politician bought off by billionaires won’t try to do it anyway, I suppose.

Also I’m not that concerned about it, I just think it will have no effect at all. Weather patterns are driven by energy that is of a different origin (solar system magnetic) and all this will do is cool off all existing weather patterns by a tiny amount. It will end up being like bike lanes or electric vehicles, something with a .01 C footprint that means nothing. They will underestimate how much to put up there to block enough sunlight to accomplish what they think 1% will accomplish, and it won’t do anything. But keep that within the safe confines of the conservative blogosphere.

As discussed above, the Tamboro eruption of April 1815 resulted in a cooling of most climate regions during 1816 and part of 1817. Krakatoa erupted in August 1883. Oddly enough the weather was already unusually cold before it erupted, so it is difficult to say what part of the cold decade could be blamed on the volcano and what part was going to happen anyway. The most likely direct influence was the particularly cold spell of winter 1884-85. It may have lingered to as late as 1888 which for whatever reasons was a very cold year.

There are suggestions that even larger volcanic eruptions took place in the Little Ice Age and even as far back as the sixth century A.D., that had documented cold periods following on.

Anyone nowadays can be a “climate scientist” after attending a few indoctrination sessions and learning a bit of mumbo jumbo which is why every politician, activist, media talking head and Swedish school girl can speak in mock-authoritative terms about climate. They of course know nothing beyond what the originators of these theories want them to know. But climate science sort of overwhelmed an existing science of climatology which still exists in the background, mostly among either older professionals or young weather enthusiasts with open minds and a willingness to consider more than just the political propaganda aspects of climate change. It’s in that community, partially silenced by the fascist tendencies of the IPCC, that a lot of skepticism and concern continue to exist and won’t be eliminated entirely no matter how many times Greta appears on TV to scold everyone who disagrees with her. In fact, that’s possibly an incentive to dig in and oppose harder.

That doesn’t mean of course that a rogue politician bought off by billionaires won’t try to do it anyway, I suppose.

—
Close, I thing Bezos would love it if his Blue Horizons is the vehicle. Billionaire, means, motive, method.

Everything has some effect - never underestimate the power of Nature to turn the expected into the unexpected.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.