Scientists Push Geoengineering Agenda Forward, Ignore Critics
It wasn’t that long ago that the mere mention of geoengineering erupted into a slathering of “tin foil hat” condemnation. But it seems that these days, the tin foil hats are becoming remarkably more stylish. Geoengineering is becoming a more acceptable proposal for those afraid of man-made climate change. In fact, for the first time ever, a mildly relevant Democratic Presidential candidate is proposing government funding of geoengineering agendas. Andrew Wang is proposing climate change management, or geoengineering, to save our planet. Wang’s ideas will receive a decent amount of air-time this year as he is seated in the second tier of Democratic candidates. And make little mistake, many scientists will back Wang’s geoengineering proposals.
In fact, geoengineering is becoming more and more acceptable in the world of science. If you’re opposed to man-made weather intervention, Bill Gates blocking the sun, or Bill Nye dumping bubbles in our oceans to reflect the sun, you’re in for a sad awakening.
Many scientists believe that man is causing the increasing concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere; thus, they feel compelled that man can stop it. Support is growing like weeds in your neighborhood abandoned lot.
The UK Government’s former chief scientific advisor Sir David King proposes that we “repair and restore” our climate.
“Time is no longer on our side,” King says.
“What we do over the next 10 years will determine the future of humanity for the next 10,000 years.” He continues.
Those words signal a change in strategy. Rather than fleece taxpayers with odd climate change bills, they want to fleece us with man-made intervention concepts. Now man not only feels as though they control the weather and climate by default of living, they believe they can manipulate it through geoengineering.
A recent article published in Yale Environment 360 highlights the “woke science” which reports scientists feel no other option will save life on earth. This means geoengineering, as a solution to climate change, is now earmarked as a viable solution.
The distinct change in rhetoric is on full display with King, who no longer supports emissions reduction. Instead, he wants science to intervene and manipulate the earth’s atmosphere.
What Is Geoengineering
With all that said, it begs the question, what is geoengineering exactly? And should we be uneasy over it?
Solar Geoengineering or Solar Radiation Management (SRM)
Solar geoengineering is the more popular, often discussed way to beat climate change. With solar geoengineering, scientists reflect the sun back to space. See my earlier Bill Nye example in paragraph two. This technique is quickly gaining steam. The National Academies carried out a study into solar geoengineering in 2018.
“We are running out of time to mitigate catastrophic climate change. Some of these interventions… may need to be considered in future.” National Academies of Science president, Marcia McNutt stated.
In other words, solar geoengineering now has footing in the United States.
None of this is new. The Russians wanted to fill our atmosphere with sulphate back in the early 1980s. In 1995, British scientists tested the concept of fertilizing the oceans.
But not every scientist is on-board with solar geoengineering. In fact, some scientists published work in Nature, called the concept “outlandish” and even “unsettling.”
Unfortunately for these scientists, they are becoming the fringe they once called out. With more and more scientists supporting man-made intervention in the field of geoengineering, scientists reasonably asserting concerns are now that fringe.
Myles Allen of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute says: “Every year we are not even trying to reduce emissions is another 40 billion tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere that we are blithely committing future generations to scrub out again.”
In other words, scientists and world governments now feel more unified than ever that geoengineering is our only hope to survive. The earth, billions of years old, apparently can’t survive another 20 to 50 years without humans intervening. That’s probably hard to swallow. It should be.
Solar Geoengineering Techniques
With solar geoengineering, some techniques involve stopping the sun before it hits the earth. This strategy is achieved using space reflectors. There’s a ton of obvious uncertainty in terms of what the fall out may be with blocking our sunlight, even if only small portions.
A popular strategy called the albedo enhancement, adds surface reflectivity to clouds and land structures. Remember back in April of 2018, the city of Los Angeles spent $40,000 per mile sealing city streets with chemicals? That’s albedo enhancement at work. That’s making a land structure, in this case a street, reflect the sun’s rays. The hope is cooler temperatures. Scientists claim that roof albedo could reduce energy use by 23% to 40%.
Another technique called crop albedo could delve into genetically modifying plant structures to increase glaucousness. The glaucousness effect increases a white coating or reflectiveness to the plant’s leaves.
Lastly, the infamous “inject microbubbles into the ocean” technique. The concept, again citing Billy Nye’s proposal, is that increasing bubbles increasing the reflectivity of the sun.
This geoengineering technique would be carried out in oceans, streams, ponds, lakes, you name it. Scientists also claim this could help reduce droughts, such as the drought overtaking India today.
Otherwise known as greenhouse gas removal, carbon geoengineering is an attempt to siphon carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Proponents of this geoengineering technique aim to combat what they call the greenhouse effect. Additionally, they believe they can reduce ocean acidification. In order to carry out this type of geoengineering technique, applications would have to work on a coordinated global level.
There are several types of carbon geoengineering to consider:
Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement: With this technique, scientists would break up limestone and disperse it into the ocean to help the ocean store more carbon. This would in turn, according to scientists, reduce acidification.
Ocean Fertilisation: Scientists would infuse the ocean with nutrients in hopes of sucking out the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levels.
Biochar: Scientists would char biomass. They would then shove it under the ground. The result, they say, would be less carbon because it would all be secured under the earth.
Afforestation: Scientists would plant trees. Lots of trees.
Enhanced Weathering: Causing minerals and carbon dioxide to react in the atmosphere and produce a compound eventually funneled to the oceans.
One of the most controversial terms in the world is “chemtrails.” When anyone discusses chemtrails as a valid concern, they are immediately labeled as a lunatic, or heretic. In fact, all of geoengineering used to be considered outlandish to the mainstream.
But now we have to wonder, is there some truth in chemtrails?
Let me explain.
The base concept that commercial airliners drop massive chemicals on us as a way to poison society isn’t true. But new proposals may hold a future of massive amounts of planes dumping sulphate particles into the atmosphere. A recent peer-reviewed paper proposes the concept as a “cheap solution” to combat climate change.
They want to commence this strategy in 15 years.
This science is based on studies conducted around erupting volcanoes. The planes would be used to immitate a volcano’s eruption, which also releases sulphate particles into the atmosphere. This naturally lowers the atmosphere’s temperatures. Of course, volcanoes are a natural cycle of earth while planes dumping sulphate particles are far from natural. That distinction seems not to matter too much anymore.
So what are some really talking about when they mention “geoengineering chemtrails?”
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI)
Here’s what that looks like.
The reason we’d need massive amounts of flights carrying out sulphate dumping missions is due to sulphate’s short life span in our atmosphere. That’s right, the “protective layer” of sulphate would disintegrate and constantly need a new infusion.
Geoengineering Climate Change Risks
Simply stated, man intervening in nearly anything poses risk to us all. Nature utilizes a strategy that’s billions of years old. If not for nature’s successful strategy, you’d not be reading this article.
What are the risks of geoengineering? No one seems to know, which is the most unsettling part. But man modifying the earth’s temperature could endanger numerous plants and animals. It will create discord in the natural world.
“Using large-scale biomass plantations to extract CO2 from the atmosphere might contribute to climate protection, but can lead to transgressing many other environmental limits, implying large risks for biodiversity, nutrient and water cycles and land use. Therefore, biomass as a means of CO2 removal can only be a limited contribution to sustainable climate mitigation pathways.” Says Dr Vera Heck, a lead author for a study looking at the potential effects of biomass burning.
In other words, pushing one climate change solution creates another climate breach. Who would have thought? Probably anyone with common sense.
“The risky scenarios imply substantial risk of triggering negative Earth system feedback and might undermine the stability and resilience of the Earth system.” Heck goes on.
Other scientists believe such geoengineering risks are low.
With Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, the strategy could never stop. If planes cease dumping sulphate particles into the atmosphere, the sulphate reflective layer dies off, this results in abrupt warming. In a scenario of abrupt warming, many animals and plants suffer and probably die off.
It would be difficult to ignore the potential consequences of geoengineering technology on international relations. If we can modify the weather, can’t China do the same? The ability for enemy nations to deploy droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and more, should be considered. The idea is known as climate manipulation or weather control. And it isn’t as far-fetched as some would like us to believe.
What if, for example, a climate war broke out in an indirect way. Imagine Russia is suffering from a drought. Their scientists decide the earth needs to be cooled. Russian survival, in this example, means a cooler earth. But the United States could be devastated by a 2-degree uptick in temperature. Do we believe the Russians or Chinese would care what the results of climate manipulation on the United States would be? I think we all know the answer to such things.
Dictator ran nations such as North Korea would love to have a weather manipulation button. Imagine the potential. They could starve nations. They could consistently inflict major damage on nations.
The international community rarely finds consensus on anything. It’s difficult to imagine we’d be able to trust China with geoengineering technology. But make no mistake about it, China and many other nations are working towards it. There might not be much anyone can do about it anymore.
Author: Jim Satney
PrepForThat’s Editor and lead writer for political, survival, and weather categories.
Like Us On Facebook -