Guest essay by Ivor Williams
The world wide web is perfectly designed to spread despair, gloom, despondency and the opinions of all those who don’t know what they’re talking about. One product of this unlooked-for attribute is a continuous daily avalanche of global warming doom.
Every instance of drought, gales, hurricanes, forest fires and floods are now apparently the result of global warming. Weather has seemingly been gentle, mild and unchangeable until the last 50 years.
Quite suddenly (in climatic terms) we had that infamous statement from the UN Secretary-General: ‘the era of global warming has ended and the era of global boiling has arrived.’ ‘This newspaper,’ said the pontifical Guardian newspaper, ‘is right to speak of a climate crisis or emergency.’
July really got them going. ‘Some news outlets [source not given] have reported that daily temperatures have hit a 100,000 year high.’ The claims couldn’t get more ridiculous, you might think, but they did. ‘Scientists [source again not given] are predicting that July will likely be the warmest in human civilisation’s history.’
These everyday nonsensical postings are seized on by other parts of the media and are world-wide within minutes of them first appearing. ‘Nonsensical’ because daily (and therefore monthly) temperatures have only been recorded world-wide since about 1880, and even now are dubious because of the huge gaps in the spread of temperature measurements over both land and sea.
Meanwhile, some scientists have noted that in spite of Emission Reduction Resolutions being signed off at every annual UN Conference of the Parties from 1995 (COP1) to 2023 (COP27), emissions have risen constantly throughout. This is because governments, presidents and dictators have all understood that their people demand not only shelter and food but also a constant supply of electricity. The cheapest and quickest way to provide this is by way of fossil-fuelled power stations.
Those scientists have therefore come up with other ways to save the world from what they see as imminent climate doom. What about dimming the sun, for instance? Solar Radiation Management (SRM) includes marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, space-based techniques, and stratospheric aerosol scattering. SRM aims to cool the Earth (or stop temperatures rising) by reflecting a small percentage of sunlight back into space.
A UN Environment Programme report earlier this year said that ‘measures such as SRM are being raised in scientific and public discourse since global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not on track to meet the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal.’
The White House recently asked the US Office of Science and Technology to ‘provide a research plan for solar and other rapid climate interventions.’ More worryingly the world’s richer people have joined in. George Saros says cloud brightening (to reflect more sunlight) would be his preferred method. Bill Gates has backed a Harvard project to spray calcium carbonate into the high atmosphere. Jeff Bezos ‘is using Amazon’s supercomputer capabilities to model the effects of plans to inject huge amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere.’
Back in 1978, the United Nations published the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. It seems they could already see the possibility of ‘weather wars’. Could SRM experiments be construed as hostile by nations not involved?
While some groups argue for sun-dimming others are warning of the dangers. ‘The risks of research,’ said the June issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, ‘are not always communicated by solar radiation management research advocates …
Idealized climate models, in particular, can erroneously misrepresent stratospheric aerosol injection as technology that can be centrally designed and easily deployed.’
There are many other similar concerns. 440 scientists and other academics have signed an open letter calling for ‘immediate political action … to prevent the normalization of solar geoengineering as a climate policy option.’ That UNEP report quoted above also said that ‘SRM is not yet ready for large-scale deployment to cool the Earth.’
Another website commented that ‘scientists worry that studying how to shade the Earth from some of the sun’s heat is a slippery slope toward deployment of solar radiation management without fully understanding the risks.’
But the temptation for some groups to save the world is proving too strong to resist. One earlier SRM research project was SPICE (Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering) from a group of UK universities and organisations, which ran from 2010-2013. Another SCoPEX, from Harvard, got as far as a proposed field trial in Sweden in March 2021 but the Swedish government stopped it under pressure from indigenous people and environmental groups.
Here in the UK last September, according to the March 2023 MIT Technology Review, ‘researchers … launched a high-altitude weather balloon that released a few hundred grams of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, a potential scientific first in the solar geoengineering field.’ There was a second flight in September from the launch site in Buckinghamshire. Andrew Lockley, an independent researcher previously affiliated with University College London, led the project.
A US company, Make Sunsets, has so far launched 22 balloons which, it claims, has offset 3,411+ ton-years of warming. Their system is basic, using a balloon, parachute and telemetry equipment very similar to the radio-sonde layout used by meteorologists for many years. The reflective particles are inserted into the balloon before inflation, the balloon expands as it ascends, eventually bursts, and the particles are scattered into the stratosphere, probably more than 60,000 feet above the earth. The parachute brings the instrument pack down gently (if it opens properly).
‘The science and math back us up,’ their website claims, ‘but we also recognize that there are unknowns and risks associated with stratospheric aerosol injection … By purchasing a Cooling Credit [£9 or $10], your funds will be used to release at least 1 gram of our “clouds” into the stratosphere on your behalf, offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon dioxide for 1 year.’
Dimming the sun will mean ever larger experiments conducted on the very air we breathe and the atmosphere we live in. Once initiated they will be impossible to control. Computers have not yet been invented that could accurately forecast the precise results worldwide. Any subsequent extreme weather will be seen as a direct consequence and the nation responsible for hosting the experiments could be sued for hundreds of billions in damages.
There’s more to worry about here than the so-called global warming emergency.
Any nation that would be stupid enough to put the idiocy of Gates, Soros, Bezos cs. into practice would find itself at the receiving end of a pre-emptive nuclear attack.
In the U.K. we had the Apostolic Nuncio, Kerry, wing in last week to tell us that we really mustn’t question the gospel or we will all fry🤡
Did he arrive by sail boat? Oh no, apologies, he says he can private jet because he’s important
Why it’s the ONLY way for people like me to travel.
Who is this person anyway, lovee? Why I’ll wager they don’t even own a yacht!
Ed, the interesting aspect of Gates and Bezos is that they are not idiots (definition of idiot: a stupid person, a person of low intelligence). Both of them are MENSA level intelligence, and reports are that both have mild Aspergers Syndrome. Useful data is lacking for Soros, but he profits from chaos. So, is it a simple “follow the money” issue, or what?
In James VI we had a king known as
The Wisest Fool in Christendom
There are a plethora of them now.
Really intelligent people know that advertising membership of organisations such as. Mensa reflects poorly on ones character and judgement.
My take on this is very different. It’s almost impossible for humans to significantly alter the earth’s albedo in such a short timeframe. I’m not worried that it would work “too well”. I suspect that it wouldn’t work at all.
If this is the face-saving retreat route for NutZero politicians, allowing them to U-turn from civilizational collapse without admitting their insanity, then LET’S TAKE THE DEAL!
Let them save us with a few puffs of magic smoke and we can all just carry on living our lives. They can move on to some other rent-seeking scam as they always have had and always will have.
Read Fallen Angels by Larry Niven, Michael Flynn, and Jerry Pournelle is you want to see what lies down this path. https://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven-ebook/dp/B005BJTZ1U/
Toby:
Thx for the Niven book tip.
For a more recent SciFi novel (2021) try my fav author Neal Stephson’s “Termination Shock”.
[a billionaire decides, on his own, to save the planet by injecting sulfur into the atmosphere:
What could go wrong? A fun read]
Wait a minute. Injecting sulfur? Doesn’t that cause acid rain? And didn’t we have a discussion about that back in the previous century?
Back in the 1980s I recall being in Germany and reading that due to acid rain, the forests were dying and may soon be gone.
It was not apparent at the time. They were just ahead of their time. Now the Schwarzwald is being raped to put up bird and bat shredders.
We had these discussions in the 1970’s. I lived in upstates NY at the time and we got constant input on acidification in the Adirondacks. I believe acidification is real.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3075/pdf/fs2009-3075.pdf
If you are getting a continuous daily avalanche of global warming doom, you might want to change your subscriptions. I get a steady stream of skeptical analyses.
Me too David – choose your inputs
Create your own bubble. Ignore the NYT and WaPo bubbles.
Some of the analyses are of these alarmist sources so I know what they are saying. But I do subscribe to the free WashPo daily climate newsletter, for laughs.
In fact I spend more time watching their bubble than ours because theirs is the threat to America. Enemy troop movements.
Technically the term is system of belief, not bubble. Alarmism is a system of belief, as is skepticism, each comes with considerable variety of opinions. At most only one can be true and I firmly believe that is skepticism.
David:
I agree. And belief systems are notoriously hard to change since it gets incorporated into your self-perceived persona. Rejecting it will be akin to heresy & result in excommunication from your chosen “tribe” [us skeptics would call it a cult ].
I read the alarmists to see what they are saying, but many times its just for laughs. “Intellectual amusement” is what I say to anyone who asks.
btw Keep up your good work!
Yes, while it’s less stressful to be blissfully unaware, the intentions of the demonrats are not benign.
Sun Tzu. The full quote goes like this: “Know thy enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated
The only time I read anything from NYT or WaPo is when it is quoted in responses on WUWT.
I read the WaPo free daily climate policy newsletter with considerable amusement.
We can inject huge amounts of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere by importing more Volkswagen diesels.
50+ MPG and global cooling with each item imported. Win-win
Not any more. Low sulphur diesel has been on the market for a while and has pretty well replaced high sulphur fuel.
Or we could just quite stripping the sulfur out of the coal we use in our power plants.
They won’t, they know it’s a stupid idea meant to distract
Stop operating the SO2 scrubbers on coal fired power plants and get the bonus of 5% or more extra power out of the units. Those scrubbers are energy hogs.
Do it over the ocean by returning to 4%S HMFO for ship’s bunkers. Far more effective.
As I have strongly protested to one of the university groups “studying” this approach, the intentional injection of significant aerosols into the stratosphere could pose serious problems should a major volcanic eruption occur. A Pinatubo-class eruption (1991) will cool the planet a degree or more C and reduce photosynthetic radiation. Prolonging these effects following a future major volcanic eruption and artificial stratospheric aerosol injection could have unpredictable negative effects, including a global reduction in plant growth. Other negative consequences include the impact on astronomy and the tracking of the aerosol optical depth of the atmosphere (as I have done since 1990). Then there is the problem of implementing this scheme when some nations do not approve.
Sulfur Dioxide? Don’t forget the Acid Rain hysteria. The speeches and papers are right there in our records for recycling.
More than a little ironically, high-altitude aerosols block the solar direct irradiance which then reduces the electrical output of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems (solar panels). Greater aerosol scattering increases diffuse (sky) irradiance but not enough to make up the difference. Lost PV electricity generation equals loss of income for the system owners.
As if climate is understood well enough to do engineering.
It clearly is not understood well enough to model.
Who needs modeling when it’s Goddling (playing God) the meddlers are really after?
“We know what the correct climate is. We know just how to get there. If you dumb peasants just grant us the power, we’ll take the lot of you back to Camelot, when it never rained till after sundown, July and August never got too hot,” etc.
Unfortunately, real understanding is not required for meddling. AFTER serious disaster, the survivors (if any) will say, “We didn’t know” as if that were an excuse rather than a condemnation.
The larger the ego, the smaller the self-awareness and restraint, the more effective meddling can be. We talking hypothetical chimpanzees typewriting Shakespeare at random — on a much larger scale. With the near-certainty of success. . . according to the meddlers.
To be realistic, the elites won’t do any of these wildly irresponsible things, because the unknown, potentially catastrophic results, would affect them and theirs too – they may be hubris filled deceivers, but they are also self protectionist
Plus, all global peoples would be affected by any consequences, which would inevitably lead to conflict
These wild put outs are just chaff designed to deepen the narrative to shoe horn the real cash cow, nut zero, in
I can see where you go wrong: You assume rich people are intelligent. Psychopathy is a much more reliable predictor for financial success than intelligence.
Secondly, and this is very,very important: I rich man can very easily be swayed by telling him something can cost him money, or make him money, they have few other interests.They are now being told the climate will make them poor, and they will sue God himself if need be. The rest are busy making so much money off of this scam, they will kill God if he interferes…
Not to worry . . . human intervention to “cool the planet” is not required . . . nature is going to care of that all by herself:
What does the graph look like when the observations through 2023 are included?
Earth has been cooling since 2016, so trend is down.
However if last month’s spike signals a reversal, then the huge underwater Tongan eruption may interrupt the solar cycles’ signals. Plus cleaner fuel.
The graph does not include 2016 either.
Uummm . . . I think the best data only supports that the Earth has “paused” in its global warming for the last ~9 years (i.e., since about 2014), NOT that it has been cooling.
Reference: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/05/the-new-pause-remains-at-8-years-10-months/
According to the dataset used in the graph you posted the warming trend over the last 9 years is +0.05 C/decade. And from 2006 (the year the graph stopped) it is +0.23 C/decade.
The graph that I posted does NOT include data (the red line) more recent than 2006. You yourself say so.
Therefore, it is impossible to determine from it any “trend” for the last 9 years.
Time to check your meds.
Yes. I know. That’s a problem. I fixed it below.
Of course it is possible. I just downloaded the CRU data directly and plugged into Excel and did a LINEST on it just like do for everything else.
Like this:
A clear warming trend then, when the silly graph scaling is removed. Only someone desperate to hide reality (possibly from themselves) would make the vertical axis 120F when the data don’t go above 60F.
It’s child-like.
TFN, that “silly”vertical axis scale going from -20 to +120 deg-F encompasses the range of ambient temperature swing (variability) that something like 99% of humans experience on Earth in the course of a year.
The vertical axis scale hides nothing, but instead shows just how impactful “global warming” since 1880 has been on the lives of most people.
Indeed, it’s child-like to see it otherwise.
Yeah, but the data shown are “global average temperatures”.
You could make a similarly ridiculous graph based on human body temperature, with ‘normal’ on the left spanning to ‘dead’ on the right. It would still look like a flat line on that scale. Small differences can have big consequences. Hiding them with ludicrous scaling on charts doesn’t change that fact.
“ data shown are “global average temperatures”.”
No, the red line shown is a warmist-homogenised urban and airport unfit-for-purpose FABRICATION.
There is absolutely no possibility that it remotely represents the actual historic global temperature.
Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man… (hat-tip to Geoff Bridges).
Many other opinions differ. People a lot smarter than the likes of us, for instance.
And people a lot smarter than them, have declared that there is no climate crisis.
Aye, we’ll just have to see how it pans out. Not looking good from my perspective, but I have been known to be wrong, on occasion…
No, not my opinion.
… provable scientific fact.
Do you DENY that urban temperature site create spurious warming
Do you DENY that aircraft exhausts are hot.
Do you DENY that many adjustments have cooled the past and/or warmed the present
Do you DENY that there were basically no worthwhile ocean measurements before 2005
Basically everyone is smarter than you are, nit-wit !
Initially you were complaining only about the vertical axis on the graph that Redge posted.
Now, being called out on that complaint, you switch to complaining about it representing “global average temperature”.
How about laying ALL your cards on the table before going further?
The global average temperature does not swing between -20 and +120 F.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
There is no global average temperature existing.
I’m going to let you pick that fight with Anthony Watts on your own.
He has the same position but uses them anyway for a reason that you never will accept.
Anthony Watts does not think the global average temperature exists?
To complete the full sentence that I posted above on August 29, 2023 3:41 pm you need to add “. . . (variability) that something like 99% of humans experience on Earth in the course of a year.”
Taking my words out of context and then twisting them to claim they refer to the range of “global average temperature” (as you just did) is . . . well, child-like, to use your own words.
Let me see if I have this straight. So you accept that the graph is of the global average temperature (GAT) and you accept that the GAT does not swing by 140 F, but you think a 140 F range is still an acceptable for the y-axis anyway? No?
The GAT IS NOT A TEMPERATURE. It is a ΔT, a difference between absolute temperatures.
Attempting to trend anomalies is a mistaken use of math. Each anomaly has its own monthly temperature and monthly baseline. Therefore the trend has no common base.
Show us anomalies using a common global temperature baseline in order to let one judge what is truly going on. The temperatures are there to calculate an absolute global temp and use it to calculate a real anomaly.
The red line on the graph is the plot of “global temperature” over time, however such is obtained and without associated error/uncertainty bars. The field of the graph is defined by the extent (numerical range) of both the x-axis and the y-axis.
I simply cannot educate you to understand the difference between these two different things.
With these facts, yes, the graph being discussed is mathematically proper and acceptable. QED.
Yes. I know. That’s my point. It’s the global average temperature; not a the range of the minimum and maximum temperatures at specific locations.
What difference does that make? The graph you posted doesn’t have error/uncertainty bars and it has its y-axis scaled based on the y-values.
It is standard practice to scale both the x and y axis based on the extent of the of x and y values.
It is mathematically proper to scale the y-axis based on a metric that has nothing to do with the y-values?
Aw cmon man! (trying to be presidential here). Obviously it’s the maximum temperature range observed over the vast majority of the earth’s surface. Not hard to grasp.
You’re better than that bdgwx.
It’s not a graph of the range of temperatures at spot locations though.
It IS NOT a graph of maximum temperature range!
It is an average of ΔT’s. They do not have a global baseline.
An average, at least with a normal type distribution, has half the above the mean and half below the mean. What is the variance of the temperatures used to calculate the anomalies? What is the high value and where is it? Where is the low value and where is it+
“It’s child-like.”
Then you might just understand it. !
Listen, as I’ve said before, if I wasn’t stupid I wouldn’t be posting on this nonsensical blog. I am among my peers here.
Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes, well, he eats you.
There’s just one thing though …
No, your peers would be on a kiddy’s site….
Maybe the Muppets or Telly-tubbies, would be a better fit for your very limited IQ.
The world would be a better place if you put your nonsensical
The world would be a better place if YOU didn’t put your nonsensical posts on this blog.
Since the unplotted data from 2006 to 2023 comprise only 17 years which is only 7% of the dominate 230-year cycle component and only 26% of the sub-dominate 65-year cycle, it doesn’t matter all that much to me.
Get back to me in another 20 years.
In other words, don’t show me any data that spoils my beliefs. Not for 20-years. Thanks.
There is no “data” actually shown.
The red line fiddled by CRU is a total fabrication.
Once again, your opinion is noted.
Even the CRU admit that most of the ocean temps are “totally made up”
And are you still in DENIAL of urban warming.
Your inability to learn even the most obvious things really shows your lack of cognitive ability.
Umm… you forgot to mention that you think El Nino is causing all the warming.
Yes, and you now recently agreed with me.
Certainly there is no other warming in the satellite data.
Thing is, (next thing for you to learn) is that graph being used here made up of urban warming and adjustments.
It is nothing to do with “global” anything.
At least he finally admitted that this is faith based, not science based.
Tell us what the variance/standard deviations are in the temperatures used to calculate the GAT.
Why are they never discussed?
Do we need another 20 years? I ask because the prediction is already off by 0.65 C in only 17 years. It’s not quite as bad as the Easterbrook or Monckton predictions, but it’s still pretty bad. And with the planetary energy imbalance at +1.46 W/m2 it’s hard to imagine the temperature not continuing to go up perhaps even at a faster rate than in the previous 17 years.
Do you seriously believe that a plot of what is claimed to be global average temperature can be accurate to 0.01 C?
As Dr. Pat Frank commented in a recent WUWT video posted on WUWT, such a parameter likely does not have an uncertainty better than ± 1 C.
As to your claim of knowing the “planetary energy imbalance” (it is actually in units of power flux) to a precision of 0.01 W/m^2, I need not comment further.
“It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible.”
— Aristotle
Yes, he does so believe.
No I do not.
Then why did you post “I ask because the prediction is already off by 0.65 C in only 17 years”, as if the value 0.65 C was
factualmeaningful?I asked because the prediction is off by 0.65 C in 17 years. Just because I don’t think the GAT is accurate to 0.01 C doesn’t invalidate the error of the prediction in the graph you posted. And BTW…the reason why I rounded the 0.65 C figure in the first place is because the graph you posted had divisions of 0.05 C.
Nevermind. I extended it myself using the CRU.dataset.
Note that the last dot is the partial year average for 2023.
NOT a “global” temperature history.
An urban warming, airport and “adjustment” temperature history.
Does not remotely indicate anything “global”
Show us where oceans were measured before 2005. ? “Mostly made up”
It is amazing how well the fabrication matched the massive global urban population expansion since around 1960s (taking into account the AMO and other natural cycles.)
That is the hill warmist/alarmists ignores since they want to have their made up global temperature number to run with.
Yikes! We’re all gonna die!
Nearly all the latter warming on that red squiggle is from urban expansion, airport sites, and data manipulation.
It is not remotely representative of GLOBAL temperatures.
1) That red squiggle that you refer to goes back to 1850 . . . not much “urban expansion, airport sites and data manipulation” going back that far.
2) That red squiggle that you refer to has substantial up spikes and down spikes over intervals shorter than 10 years . . . that’s not consistent with your assertion of such being from “urban expansion, airport sites and data manipulation”
3) For sure it is incorrect to assert the red squiggle truly reflects a “global” average temperature, but that is what CRU chooses to label such . . . and I have to believe its based on the best data they have assembled, and with full recognition that measurements of global temperatures on a global scale only became possible after the era of orbiting satellites began in the mid 1960’s.
Please feel free to present better data for the same time period, if you have it.
Yeah, then it suddenly stops in ~ 2006. The most recent 16 years of data are excluded. Why?
Might it be because the forecast trajectory of the “65-year cycle” didn’t quite turn out as expected?
And how did you garner a “230-year cycle” from a 172 year data set?
1… The main rise happens since the 1950s.. yes.. urban warming. (plus agenda driven adjustments)
2… the spikes and troughs are natural variability, AMO cycles, El Nino etc etc
3… CRU is at the forefront of the AGW scam.. they can label it what they like, doesn’t make it true. Even “believing” that is could be correct is the height of anti-science gullibility.
Show me where the data for oceans came from before 2005. Even Phil Jones from CRU says it was “mostly made up”
And please STOP DENYING that a large proportion of the sites used for the land temperature are anything but totally unfit for the purpose of long-term temperature records.
Actually, Professor Pat Frank does a good job of describing that surface ocean temperature data from about the mid-1800’s up to around the 1970’s came almost entirely from thermometers placed in retrieved water buckets dropped from the decks of ships and, in the latter parts of this time span (starting about 1930), from thermometers placed near the water intakes used to route ocean water to cool the onboard ship engines. He discusses the uncertainties of such thermometer measurements, both instrumental as well as resulting from in-the-field use.
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/24/patrick-frank-nobody-understands-climate-tom-nelson-pod-139/ , starting at the 39m50sec point into the video.
1) Population wasn’t expanding in 1850? The data was collected in 1850, the data manipulation is more recent.
You can see that the rapid urban expansion started around the 1960s, 1970s
Pretending that this expansion hasn’t cause huge urban effects at temperature sites is just ignorance and DENIAL.. !
Nearly every temperature site in the world has been affected to some to degree (or 3 or 4 degrees)
Many have been massively affected.
They are totally unfit for any sort of “climate change” determination..,
… except for propaganda purposes
With almost zero temperature data from the SOUTHEN Hemisphere and no viable Southern Ocean water temperature either in 1850.
And 175 years later, still almost zero SH data…yet Stokes and Co. connect all the dots and color all the areas as if there were data.
Starting about 1850, surface temperature data for SH oceans has been obtained from thermometers placed into deck-dropped-and-retrieved water buckets and from shipboard ocean water thermometers used to record ship engine ocean-water-cooling intake temperature, just as was used aboard ships traveling in the northern hemisphere. This included many ships traveling as far south as Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope, as well as ships involved with developing and established trade with South America, South Africa and Australia.
In the Southern Hemisphere, the ocean-to-land ratio is 0.81:0.19.
The shipping lanes in the SH were very narrow and covered an absolutely TINY amount of the southern ocean.
You really think the methodology would be accurate to any more than a few degrees.
Sorry, but there is no reliable worthwhile data from most of the southern oceans before 2005.
It is all fictious.. mostly made up. !
Not quite true.
“Weather satellites have been available to infer sea surface temperature (SST) information since 1967, with the first global composites occurring during 1970. Since 1982, satellites have been increasingly utilized to measure SST and have allowed its spatial and temporal variation to be viewed more fully. For example, changes in SST monitored via satellite have been used to document the progression of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation since the 1970s.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
Such orbiting, remote-sensing satellites provide essentially full coverage of SH oceans (the Antarctic ice cap is not thusly monitored, being ice-covered land).
Please note: IMHO, the satellite microwave sounding instruments used to derive measurements of sea surface temperatures are reliable and worthwhile for trending, even though they may have associated total uncertainties as great as ± 2 C when discussing the “global average”.
A switch to high sulpher jet fuel is all it takes.
Thirty years ago, the average for jet was >1000 ppm. Today it’s <50 ppm. It would be easy to do on just about any scale.
The French government is allocating €200m (£171.6m) to destroy surplus wine and support producers. Somewhere around 302,832,944 l. that would be.
I suggest the ClimateCult™ dimmers take up the challenge of consuming that wine and let the atmosphere be.
We’d all feel better.
SO2 is used as a fumigant for grapes and as a preservative for wine, of course the levels are insignificant from a global mass basis. But SO2 gives a headache to some wine drinkers.
Salad “fix’ens” under glass at restaurants are laced with SO2. Have several of the headachers give it a go, then get back to me on the wine.
Histamine is more likely the cause, although not always.
Either way, avoidance is the best course of action.
Yeah, could be histamines making headaches but personally I find that SO2 induces an asthma response. NO2 and O3 do the same to me.
They’re not destroying the wine per se – they’re distilling it into ethanol for industrial cleaning products. Hell of a thing to do with good wine.
They should convert it into vinegar to go on fish & chips.
( if they did it at a nuclear site would it be fission chips ?? )
I would lament the Chateau Margaux but shed no tear for chateau migraine.
On-going “modification” in the quest for money ($10/gm) raises some questions:
1) Has the EPA approved US company Make Sunsets releases of (potentially toxic) particles into Earth’s stratosphere, or have they been asleep at the wheel? What comprises those reflective particles and what is their size range?
2) How long before we see TV commercials for attorneys offering to sue Make Sunsets for contributing to viewers’ asthma, COPD or lung cancer . . . you know, along the lines of all those mesothelioma commercials, “If you or a loved one has been harmed or suffered serious injury, you may be entitled to substantial compensation . . .”?
One would think that an environmental impact study was done.
They’re doing their experiments over Mexico, so jurisdiction is a question.
Hmmm . . .
1) not advertised as being “experiments” . . . instead charging $10/gram of particulates released to partially block sunlight, the price of virtue signaling in this case
2) said particulates released high in the stratosphere (an altitude of “probably more than 60,000 feet” was mentioned) . . . what are the odds that such particulates remain “over Mexico” for the duration required for them to settle back to Earth, if they ever do???
Yeah, they moved on to taking people’s money pretty quickly. Anyway, compared to natural sulfate aerosols their production is a spit in a bucket.
Main issue I have is potential toxicity, not so much quantity.
“attorneys offering to sue “
Just need to convince a few that there’s money to be made there…
How it will go wrong, for everyone including themselves
And these are the clowns who claim they know all about thermodynamics, feedback feedback and feedback
<stop the world, I wanna get off>
…where’s Heronymus Merkin when we need him?
man will never stop playing God and will never learn from its consequences
God was made in the image of man.
Large scale idiot ideas get extra attention and potentially a lot of tax credits (from you saps) when the promoter is a big donor.
Let me get this straight. We’re going to give tax credits and grants for dampening solar irradiation that is already discounted in models as being a minor factor for global warming. Wouldn’t it be easier to rebuild some failed science projects with only local impacts like N. Tesla’s Colorado Springs project (1899) or the Bass Family’s biosphere pseudoscience failure in AZ (1993)?
Tesla Experimental Station – Wikipedia
Eight go mad in Arizona: how a lockdown experiment went horribly wrong | Movies | The Guardian
Any people, organizations, or governments that engage in this obscenity, are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be subject to execution. These idiots have no idea what they are playing with and they certainly shouldn’t be allowed to play with us without our consent.
I agree with spren. We shouldn’t tolerate these fools. They *don’t* know what they are doing.
They can’t tell you how much the temperature would change by these actions, they are just guessing.
They can’t tell you what a given amount of CO2 will do to the temperatures and they can’t tell you what a given amount of SO2 will do to the temperatures, either. They are all guessing. This is not the way to plan the future.
Bunch of Damn Fools! If they try such things, they should be locked up in a Rubber Room.
Sounds like Fauci is in favor of masking earth.
https://t.me/RiseGS/3762
Those damn mask studies! Now they tell us the N-95 masks may be hazardous to our health.
The covid pandemic has really destroyed confidence in medical scientific results. We get studies that say opposite things and studies that get corrected and on and on and on.
Who to trust? I honestly don’t know. Myself, I guess. But I’m not an authority, but I guess I’m pretty good at searching things out. Maybe that will be sufficient.
The school where I work, came back with masks and distancing. We made a special effort to make sure hands were washed often and infection control procedures like wiping down surfaces several times a day were followed. Very few cases and I never caught COVID.
I firmly believe the infection control procedures did more to prevent infections than masks. We even had fewer flu cases than usual because of the infection control.
Doesn’t the net zero push tell you that you have no chance of successfully opposing any political scheme, at least before the damage is done? Is net zero likely to be less destructive than SRM?
It looks like to me that the average person is going to have to suffer some big financial setbacks attributed to Net Zero before the political scheme is opposed.
I was hoping that some place like Germany or the UK or somewhere in Australia would be the first to bankrupt their system and then be an example of what not to do for the other nations, but it looks like Biden has the United States in that race now.
If we don’t have blackouts under the current Net Zero plan, then we are going to have prices for energy go through the roof. Either way, people are going to notice and then they will demand change, but not before then, I’m afraid.
My electricity rate is already up about 20 percent and I live in a State with a lot of Fossil Fuels, but the ruinabales are making too many inroads on the grid, and putting it in jeopardy and driving up costs.
We need Trump to come in and reverse all this insanity, or we are pretty much sunk.
I see where Germany is now being referred to as “The Sick Man of Europe”.
Not good. And we know the reason why.
Story tip – Nevada tribal rangers blow right thru climate protestor’s blockade:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/nevada-rangers-conduct-under-review-after-ramming-through/
I saw that. It’s about time law enforcement set these protestors straight.
They had traffic backed up for miles because of their silly little selfish antics.
They should go save the world on an untraveled dirt road out in the middle of nowhere.
So, these supervillains wanna see the sun blotted out from the sky.
CO2 phobia has driven them crazy.
All based on the unproven theory that CO2 can overheat the world. There is no evidence that this is the case, but these nutjobs don’t need no evidence. They are going to forge ahead into the unknown anyway.
Lock them up. They are a danger to humanity.
“wanna see the sun blotted out from the sky.”
They want to see it painted, painted, painted, painted black.
https://youtu.be/flSmiIne-4k
Hmm, anyone remember the film and TV series Snowpiercer?
I remember it. You say it in the past tense so I assume it is no longer being made. I’m not surprised. I watched about 15 minutes of it, and didn’t like it. I thought it was an implausible reality, so really couldn’t get into it.
In early June, I attended a local talk given by a scientist who is an advocate of solar geoengineering, a.k.a. solar radiation modification (SRM), as a means of keeping the rise in global mean temperature under +1.5C above pre-industrial. He briefly discussed three SRM methods for quickly reducing GMT:
— Stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, in which small particles of sulfur dioxide would be injected in massive volumes into the upper atmosphere.
— Marine cloud brightening (MCB), which would spray fine sea water to whiten clouds and thus increase cloud reflectivity.
— Cirrus cloud thinning (CCT), which is strictly not solar geoengineering but shares many of the physical and especially governance characteristics as the other methods.
After finishing up with his relatively brief scientific discussion, the scientist had these talking points to make:
— In his view, the true source of danger from global warming is the fast rate at which global mean temperature is increasing, not necessarily that it will break some arbitrary boundary in the future.
— As his thinking goes, the fast rate of increase in GMT doesn’t give enough time for local and global ecosystems to adapt successfully to rising temperatures, not in the way ecosystems did in preindustrial times.
— The world’s consumption of energy is growing. Moving any poor society anywhere on earth into a middle class lifestyle requires the sustainable consumption of 3000 kw-hours of electricity per person per year.
— China, India, and other third-world nations are committed to improving the economic lot of their citizens and will not be abandoning fossil fuels regardless of what we here in the west decide to do in pursuing Net Zero.
— The technology needed to implement SRM in the form of stratospheric aerosol injection exists today and could be quickly deployed in a few years. SRM would be very effective in quickly reducing global mean temperature.
— Although SRM is expensive and would need to be done indefinitely into the future, it is not nearly as expensive as the costs of fully implementing Net Zero on a worldwide basis, something which will not be happening in any case.
— The Chinese are giving consideration to unilaterally pursuing SRM by injecting large quantities of sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere above their own territory. These particles will be quickly dispersed over the whole of the earth just as happens when a major volcanic eruption occurs.
Suppose the Chinese say to the world, we are going to go forward with SRM on our own initiative; and if you don’t like it, just stuff it.
In that case, many billions of dollars will be spent by government scientists and by academic institutions in studying the impacts of what the Chinese did with solar geoengineering.
In that case many billions of dollars will be spent by governments trying to keep the voters from freezing to death.
The Chinese are giving consideration to unilaterally pursuing SRM by injecting large quantities of sulfur dioxide particles into the atmosphere above their own territory.
They’re doing it already – burning coal.
It would useful to know what quanties of sulfur dioxide are being contemplated for yearly injection into the atmospherbee versus what expected reductions in GMT would be produced by those quantities, whatever they are. There has to be a climate modeling exercise of some kind out there somewhere which attempts to answer the question.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, answers that question.
This eruption lowered global temperatures by a little over 1C and the effects lasted about 18 months, before the sulphur dioxide washed out of the atmosphere.
If these fools want to lower the temperature by 1.5C, then they are going to have to do better than Mount Pinatubo, every 18 months.
Reading the NASA Earth Observatory article on Mount Pinatubo, the eruption injected 15 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere. The SO2 particles cooled the earth an average of 0.6C for a period of two years.
I took a quick look at a few of the papers referenced in the Wikipedia article on solar geoengineering / solar radiation modification (SG/SRM). Many additions and revisions have been made to that Wikipedia article in the last two months.
The advocates of SG/SRM don’t see an issue with producing the annual tonnage of SO2 required to quickly reduce the earth’s global mean temperature.
Nor do they see any serious problems with developing and deploying the technologies and the systems needed to annually disperse the needed tonnages of SO2 particles into the stratosphere.
In other words, SG/SRM is fairly sraightforward assuming enough money is made available to fund it — a lot less money than is needed for decarbonization through worldwide Net Zero.
Which probably explains why some geoscientists in the climate activist community are pushing so hard for it. SG/SRM is doable even if its risks are potentially as dangerous as the alleged risks of global warming itself.
“Stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, in which small particles of sulfur dioxide would be injected in massive volumes into the upper atmosphere.”
You can say that again! The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, did in fact, lower global temperatures by a little over one degree C for about 18 months, so these guys are going to have to inject the equivalent of a Mount Pinatubo eruption into the Earth’s atmosphere about every 18 months.
Does that sound feasible to anyone?
See my comment above. The advocates of solar geoengineering through stratospheric aerosol injection don’t see a problem with producing the annual tonnages of SO2 required.
Nor do they see a problem with developing the technologies and the systems needed to disperse the needed tonnages.
As these scientists see it, SG/SRM is both pratically doable and very much less expensive than worldwide Net Zero.
Here are Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his lab assistant Beaker performing an SG/SRM lab experiment.
Story TIP
via msn and Oplaneta and author Olawale Ogunjimi
“Manufactured Climate Consensus Deemed False By Climate Scientist – ‘The Time For Debate Has Ended”
I’ve not encountered Oplaneta and don’t see this story on that home page.
Manufactured Climate Consensus Deemed False By Climate Scientist – ‘The Time For Debate Has Ended’ (msn.com)
“The time for debate has ended”
They wish. 🙂
Nuclear winter would cool things down real fast. Then, we’d lose the ozone layer, a potent greenhouse factor. Problem solved…
The Climate scare has always been a scam, with no credible basis in science.
Therefore, current Geo-Engineering of Climate is based on a fraud. Stop!
CLIMATE, CURRENCY AND COVID – THE STRATEGY TO END AMERICA.
I warned you in 2002, 2009 and 2020:
This video by financier Porter Stansberry discusses the great frauds of our time, Climate, Currency and Covid:
https://americasviolentend.com/
1. The Climate and Green Energy scam – We published papers advocating against The Climate and Green Energy scams since 2002.
2. The Covid Lockdowns and Vaccines scam – I published against the harmful Lockdowns on 21Mar2020 and against the toxic Vaccines on 8Jan2021.
COVID & CLIMATE CHRONICLES – THE BIG CULL
3. The runaway printing of Currency by the world’s central banks – I published on the doubling of the US monetary base in 2009.
Giving mortgages to NINJA’s – No Income, No Jobs, or Assets. What could possibly go wrong?
The BASE has now increased by 6 ½ times since 2008, primarily justified by the Covid-19 scam.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/24/bad-week-for-hardware-orbiting-carbon-observatory-satellite-burns-up/#comment-80610
In 2008 the US Monetary BASE was $US850 billion, in 2009 it was $1700 billion.
The US BASE increased to $3.4 trillion by 2020, and then came the Covid-19 fraud, and the BASE peaked at $6.4 trillion and now sits at $5.6 trillion.
Monetary Base; Total (BOGMBASE) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
Stansberry’s doomsday thesis is that the runaway money-printing of the US government is unsustainable, the government is bankrupt, and the future demise of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency will happen. He predicts economic and social chaos. Many other countries, including Canada, have followed this disastrous inflationary path, also justified by the false Covid-19 scam. This is not an accident – this is the Plan.
“The Climate scare has always been a scam, with no credible basis in science.
Therefore, current Geo-Engineering of Climate is based on a fraud. Stop!”
That’s the bottom line.
Always remember UHI effect doesn’t exist for all the thermometers measuring the dooming EXCEPT when it comes to some handouts for dealing with the pressing problem-
Australia a decade behind pack on tackling urban heat (msn.com)
Story Tip
Seems corals are able to “adjust” to slightly warmer waters..
Who would’a guessed 😉
New Studies Suggest Corals Are Rapidly Developing Tolerance To Bleaching, Heat Stress (notrickszone.com)
Nah we have to freeze the coral for posterity-
Freezing Great Barrier Reef coral could be a ‘game-changer’ against the threat of climate change – ABC News
Strictly with renewable energy and completely net zero you understand.
They would probably hack up the GBR in the process !
They aren’t adjusting, they are just living as they have always done
I think it’s them or us
I vote for us.
Clean air regulation for a half-century or more has tried, and succeeded, in reducing sulphur dioxide and particulate emissions into the atmosphere. Suddenly, in their infinite wisdom, assorted big shots from Gates to Bezos recommend reversing those trends, and instead injecting a bazillion jillion times more into the stratosphere in order to cool the earth.
Cool it where? By how much? What if they miscalculate and Canada, Scandinavia, Siberia and North China get a LOT colder? What if crops fail? Tree growth slows down?
What if climate refugees by the tens of millions leave those areas and try to crowd into warmer regions? Sort of like the snowbirds that migrate to Florida and Arizona every winter, except on a larger, more permanent scale?
Who will get blamed? Who will get sued? What will the losers be forced to do for restitution?
“What if they miscalculate and Canada, Scandinavia, Siberia and North China get a LOT colder? What if crops fail? Tree growth slows down?”
You can bet they will get blamed for every bad thing that happens. Similar to the way CO2 is currently blamed for everything bad that happens with the Weather. Except the blame will be justified for excess SO2, whereas CO2 cannot be blamed for anything that is happening in the Earth’s atmosphere. There is no evidence of a connection between CO2 and Earth’s weather or climate.
Of course, if we get to the “blaming stage” with our SO2 injections, then the damage will have been done.
Injecting sufficient SO2 is not feasible, so Plan B will be to put a sun shade in orbit.
The Earth’s weather and climate don’t need to be fixed. These fools should leave things alone. Their unwarranted fear of CO2 has driven them insane. There is no need to reduce CO2, or increase SO2.
Quote from the article:-
“By purchasing a Cooling Credit [£9 or $10], your funds will be used to release at least 1 gram of our “clouds” into the stratosphere on your behalf, offsetting the warming effect of 1 ton of carbon dioxide for 1 year.’”
Doesn’t that indicate that a one ton year of CO2 has a very tiny effect if a gram of “clouds” is equal to that?
Here’s the real global emergency….
I’m pointing you to a youtube of Jordan Petersen responding to what’s just been inflicted upon him
(He’s been effectively banned from speaking on social media and most anywhere else – without undergoing ‘social media re-training’ by some self appointed and so far non-existent experts)
All you need are the first 3½ minutes to notice the contrast between him and what climate scientists are allowed. If not positively encouraged.
Esp my point is (I forget his name) the ‘climate scientist’ who said that “Scientists are also = ‘people’ and should thus speak out publicly, socially and politically about what they discover while working as climate scientists”
Petersen, as member of a ‘professional body‘ (in the same way as climate scientists are) is seeming NOT allowed to speak ‘off topic’ in the way that climate scientists are (and do so constantly – as we read on these pages)
https://youtu.be/v_o8goN6FOA
Does anyone really believe that climate scientists can adequately calculate the amount “dimming” material is needed to offset any heating from CO2?
What are the chances that we would experience not just cooler summers BUT colder and damaging winters?
I have to ask myself if scientists who delude themselves into believing they can calculate the global temperature to 1/1000ths of a degree won’t also delude themselves into thinking they can calculate to the gram of how much material would be needed.
See my comment above. The advocates of solar geoengineering through stratospheric aerosol injection don’t see a problem with producing the annual tonnages of SO2 required.
Nor do they see a problem with developing the technologies and the systems needed to disperse the needed tonnages into the stratosphere.
As these scientists see it, SG/SRM is both pratically doable and very much less expensive than worldwide Net Zero.
At any rate, here are Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his assistant Beaker performing an SG/SRM outdoor lab experiment. Click on the image to see a larger version:
There isn’t any climate emergency thus a waste of time and money.
The Earth is going to start getting very cold. The Sun will be dimming on its own starting in 2025, because of its 400-year cycle. Sunspots are associated with hotter areas that increase the output of the Sun. NOAA forecasts that the sunspot number, now around 100, will start dropping in 2025 to single digits in 2035 and to zero and stay there at least until 2040 when their predictions end. https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/predicted-sunspot-number-and-radio-flux