Religious view of environmentalism, making claims and demanding action

Geoengineering Madness

Dr. Tim Ball  Bio

Email Article

“When in doubt do nowt” was how I heard it growing up in rural England. Nowt is dialect for nought. J Whyte-Melville expressed it formally in 1874 as, “When in doubt what to do, he is a wise man who does nothing.”

But the degree of certainty promoted by the IPCC and adherents to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has effectively cancelled doubt.

As a result things are being said and actions taken even by supposedly wise men that only underline the dangers inherent in lack of understanding. Often these actions contradict the arguments on which they are based. 

Irony heaps on irony in the climate debate as we are led down the path of certainty about the problem and the cause. We now have people who blame humans for causing global warming and climate change taking deliberate action to cause cooling and counteract climate change. So, the solution to human interference is more human interference. Sadly, this assumes that you know what you’re doing that the problem is correctly identified and you’re prepared to accept the responsibility and deal with the outcome of your actions.

Four reports illustrate what they are trying to do. Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen proposed the idea of adding sulphur to the atmosphere in 2006 in order to create a haze and reduce sunlight reaching the surface. It would be like lowering a screen in a greenhouse. (Source)

The objective is to create droplets that will block the sun and create cooling, but the consequences are potentially catastrophic. If nothing else the droplets produced are sulfuric acid and wasn’t it just a few years ago we were besieged with concern about acid rain? We also hear about the catastrophe of changing pH (acidity level) of the oceans due to global warming. (Source)

Increasing acid rain over the oceans would clearly exacerbate this problem. Of course, this assumes the changing pH level is a problem, but it was promoters of AGW saying it, not me.

The second plan proposed by German researchers is to create large-scale reflective sheets to block sunlight and reduce glacier melt.  Apart from the problem of scale there appears to be a complete lack of understanding of glacier dynamics. This is reflected in the public debate engendered by Al Gore over Kilimanjaro. Glaciers are as much if not more about the dynamics of snowfall. In that area covered by the screen the glacier is condemned not to grow. At the same time it can decrease in volume under the screen through the process of sublimation. This is the change of ice, solid water, to water vapor, a gas. (You may know it as freezer burn).  Who is going to keep the screen clear of snow? An ultimate irony may be the screen being buried and subsumed into the glacier as an icy folly. If they clear the snow the screen will prevent snow accumulating and thus doom the glacier anyway. (Source)

A third plan was put into action about a year ago and it involved spreading iron filings on the surface of the Pacific Ocean. The objective was to increase the rate of CO2 absorption to offset the increase in atmospheric CO2, which the IPCC reports is due to human production. They also tell us they are 90% certain it is the cause of global warming. (Source)

As this report indicates, the results were less than stellar, which underlines the difference between theory and reality. There are many other problems. For example, they assume differences in the amount of iron are unnatural as are the variations in the number of phytoplankton. This false thinking is driven by the false assumption that change and variability are not natural in nature. They don’t appear to consider the impact on the surface water chemistry engendered by adding more iron.

In their foolish attempts to appear ‘green’, Shell Oil is funding a project to add lime to ocean waters to increase the rate of CO2 absorption. It would increase alkalinity and the oceans ability to absorb CO2. It is as foolish as all the others not considering the chemical and ecological implications to ocean surface waters. The only comment this deserves is the cynical observation that it would offset the increased acidity created by the sulphur experiment.

There are many proposals in modern times to modify the climate. In the 1960s and 1970s when global cooling was the concern, the Soviet government proposed construction of a dam across the Bering Straits. It was theorized this would reduce the flow of cold arctic water into the North Pacific and thus warm that body of water. Overall this creates warmer air in the middle and high latitudes that would circle the globe and ultimately warm up the southern and central regions of the Soviet Union. There were proposals to build large reflectors in space to direct more sunlight to the surface, including proposals to direct them specifically on northern cities for heat and longer daylight.

Major differences between these proposals and the current geoengineering madness are they did not assume the cooling was man-made and nothing was done. Now the insanity of man-made solutions is based on the false assumption that human CO2 is the cause and actions are being taken.  But let’s assume for a moment that it is CO2 causing the warming. What would have happened if they had decided to offset the cooling of the 1970s by adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

The world has cooled since 2000 and many climate scientists expect the cooling to continue at least until 2035. If the sulphur project is successful, how much will it exacerbate the cooling? Will the actions cause the very problem of unnatural climate change they claim to prevent? (Source)

Some claim we must take these risks to offset what they describe as the great-uncontrolled experiment of changing global climate. This is an extension of the humans-are-to-blame-for-every-change syndrome in the religious view of environmentalism. We must pay a penance for our sins. It assumes humans are to blame for the warming.

The scientific problems and side effects are serious enough, however, there are much larger questions. Who gives permission for these experiments that change vast segments of the atmosphere? Who monitors what they are doing and how extensive the potential damage? What if the cloud of sulphur drifts over a sovereign nation who was not consulted? Who is protecting the oceans from potentially damaging actions? Who will pay for any damage?

The certainty with which the IPCC and AGW proponents make their claims leads to a demand for action. They have denied doubt: the science is settled; the debate is over so we must act. In fact, there is considerable doubt so it is far wiser to do nowt. But then wisdom and calm on these issues is another missing variable.