There’s a moment near the end of Ayn Rand’s mostly brilliant Atlas Shrugged where she details the unveiling of various government-funded boondoggles whose development we track as the story unfolds.
All of them end in tragedy and mass death. From trains asphyxiating their passengers to sonic weapons killing spectators, the hubris and ineptitude of the rentier class which took over the U.S. government was on display in all its glory.
So, every time I see some hare-brained idea in service of a politically-motivated lie I just look at my wife, shake my head and say, “Act III, Atlas Shrugged, hon.”
The latest is the patently insane idea of dimming the sun by dispersing sulfate particles into the atmosphere to reflect and absorb some of the energy coming from it to slow the rate of global warming.
I would hope, at the very least, they are thinking of something thoroughly inert like barium sulfate, but they aren’t. They are talking about injecting SO2 into the atmosphere. Another word for SO2 is SMOG. This is the very compound we have been regulating power plants to not emit.
So, that’s it folks. That’s our choice now. Smog or a nice cozy, warm home with abundant food and mild weather for most of the planet.
The sick Marxists that think they run this planet would choose smog every time. I would file this under “Crazytown” but check the RT link above folks, this was written up by Reuters, so this is a trial balloon of the idea for the public to swallow.
The mind boggles at the arrogance of people who are so thoroughly caught up in their own messianic insanity that they need to save us all because we won’t stop burning oil, gas and coal to our own betterment.
The biggest impediment to this plan the researchers conclude? It’s not cost, because by their calculations it would be cheaper than any other ‘solution.’ It’s that it wouldn’t be able to be kept secret from the people they were poisoning.
I. shit. you. not.
From the conclusions of the ‘researchers’ :
All of the above however assumes a rational actor seeking to implement a scientifically sensible SAI program in a reasonably cost-efficient fashion. Might a less cautious or transparent actor still deploy SAI from a single equatorial island in the middle of the Pacific and evade detection? Such an actor would either deploy directly overhead, or fly to the previously proposed latitudes and deploy there. Either scenario creates a serious tradeoff between operational efficiency and costs on the one hand, and purported ‘secrecy’ on the other. Less efficiency for direct SAI deployment above the equator (Dai et al 2018) implies substantially more deployed payload for the same climate impact. More payload requires more or larger aircraft and more flights, making the program more easily detectable. Meanwhile, launching operations from one base but injecting at or near 15 and 30.0 °N and °S requires flight legs of as much as 2000 miles north and south over international waters, if not foreign airspace. This, in turn, will lengthen flights and roughly double both the number of aircraft required and the overall cost of the deployment regime, making the likelihood of a secret program more remote.
The authors note that no one in their right mind would be okay with this plan so it would have to be done by ‘rational actors’ — a tortured use of that term if I ever heard it — in secret, which would be impossible because of the sheer number of aircraft flying overhead smogging up the air.
And what’s worse, of course, is that this is the kind of research we get for our hard-earned tax dollars; morons torturing bad models on CO2-induced warming forcing, which have proven to be demonstrably FALSE, producing math which suggests a cost-efficient way to stop AGW is to pollute the air.
The only good news about all of this is that this ‘paper’ likely didn’t cost us all that much because it’s just the idle musings of a bunch of people trying to justify their current and future grant money.
They didn’t ask for billions to do a ‘test run’ and poison millions.
And yet, this scheme, cheap as it may be relative to expropriating 6-10% of global production to make energy more expensive we are currently doing, is still hideously expensive relative to doing real science which produced a mathematical model of the sun’s output which is actually accurate in both back-testing and in its predictions since it was first published.
And that model tells us that the sun is going into the kind of hibernation we’ve not experienced as a civilization over the next thirty years, possibly the next 300-400.
Dr. Valentina Zharkova’s work is stunning.
As a chemist with a strong background in spectroscopy of all types (undergraduate research and decades of professional experience) I understand what she was talking about. The higher order math is beyond me a little but it’s ultimately no different than any other mathematical transformation, like a Fourier Transform, which is used by this society everyday to unpack complex data.
I watched her most recent presentations literally agog at not only the simplicity but the beauty of her leaps of logic about how the sun operates.
She did was what any good scientist does. She asked very simple questions and then sought out data and a methodology to answer that question. And that question ultimately came down to, “Since we know that the sun’s output has predictable cycles, thanks to sunspot cycles, and we know what sunspots are now, is the sun’s magnetic field output over time an aggregate of multiple smaller fields with predicable oscillations?”
That answer is most affirmatively yes.
You don’t have to be an astro-physicist to understand the logic of her presentation. Spend the 93 minutes. It’s worth every second.
And the cooling effect from a severe drop in the sun’s magnetic field greatly dwarfs any warming projections of the AGW-alarmists worst-case scenario thanks to CO2.
And now we finally have NASA admitting that the upper atmosphere is cooling off at a rate we’ve never measured.
Of course, those that have followed such data for the past few years already knew this.
So it’s truly time to put this global warming nonsense to bed.
It is, like so many other cultural issues we are dealing with right now, just another aspect of a mass solipsistic descent into madness induced by a century of Marxism decrying the wealth created by access to cheap, abundant energy and the dislocation we experienced thanks to rapid industrialization a century ago.
This is just more Original Sin doctrine to control people by their ‘betters’ who live lives of such wealth the term ‘conspicuous consumption’ seems the grossest of understatement.
And Global Warming is their wanting to revert back to savages to save the planet, demanding sacrifice to the mother planet the way we used to sacrifice them to the Sun God to ensure abundant harvests.
Life is hard enough without a bunch of guilt-ridden busybodies running around succeeding at making it harder. Our hubris will be our downfall, not burning a little more oil.
I simply cannot get upset about there being a slightly higher concentration of heat in our corner of a cold, dark, hostile Universe that is actively trying to kill all of us all the time.
If Dr. Zharkova is right, the next few decades, in particular, will be the hardest mankind has faced in millennia. And then we’ll be truly thankful for the technology created by capitalism which will help us mitigate the worst of it.
In fact, I think I need to change my diet to fart more.
Think globally, act locally as it were.
Join my Patreon if you like farting.
I may have the time one day to determine, if it is possible, who financed Al Gore’s global warming movie to kick start the myth. Rumor that he had a deal with the known criminals at Goldman Sachs to create a fund to collect the new taxes, for sharing of course.
Obama was of course on board and gave the Paris Climate accord $100 Mill.
Miraculously, NASA, under Obama, gave him what he wanted and needed with the bogus hockey stick temperature lift off. Who woulda thought that a government agency reaching for next years budget approval would tell the president what he wanted to hear.
Is it encouraging to see some truth getting through the cracks about the still un spoken phrase: Chem Trailing…but with way-worse chemicals…like aluminum, barium, and other brain deadly chemicals…all to dim the sun….No conspiracy theory here…the US Goverement has already quietly admitted it
….too bad the truth is banned by the news media to talk about.
This “scientific paper” is just a cover story to roll out the reality of the geoengineering that has been going on on a massive skill since the 1990’s, otherwise known as chemtrails. They deliberately chose the highly toxic compound of sulfur dioxide as anyone who passed high school chemistry (do they still teach that or has it been melded into gender studies?) knows how toxic it is and also that it would convert almost instantly with the moisture in the atmosphere to sulfurous acid. A synonym for sulfur dioxide is sulfurous acid anhydride. A little bit more oxidation will turn it into sulfuric acid.
So our Owners will graciously compromise with the useless eaters and tell us, “Well, maybe SO2 is a little too toxic, so we will tune down the toxicity a hair to a mixture of aluminum oxide, barium oxide, and strontium oxide nano particles. And oh yeah – we have been blasting this into your skies for 25 years.” At the cost of hundreds of billions of dollar and everyone who looked up at the sky and wondered WTF is a conspiracy kook and a moron who is making up stories about these “natural” condensation trails (despite the fact that advances in commercial aircraft jet engines no longer produce contrails..
The fact that Tom did not connect this Reuters (read Rothschild) release fart with chemtrails must make me wonder.
I’m just not big into the chemtrails stuff. I know about it but remain publicly skeptical of it as it’s not germane to my thesis. No conspiracy here, there’s just certain subjects I’m not willing to touch on.
Well you seem fit to do an article lambasting a proposal by idiot scientists for massive toxic spraying of aerosols or gases “to control climate change,” but are not big on the real thing going on for 25 years, literally in front of our noses. I am not trying to be a troll or obnoxious, but it seems a little cognitively dissonant.
It’s not that I’m uninterested in or in disbelief of it, I feel it’s a distraction from my core thesis and will further limit my audience which is already pretty rarified. Some subjects just are a bridge too far for many readers.
I don’t see how the cooling in the very top of the atmosphere does anything at the surface level. It was already c. -200 F up there before, and so it wasn’t warming the surface (or cooling it) before. Near space is getting colder, not the surface.
Also, an extended time of this cooling if she is right is projected to cause only a 0.5 degree cooling, which is far less, not far more, than the projected warming. The solar minima reduces the total energy from the sun by just 0.1%. That happens half way through the 11 year solar cycle, regularly, without any cooling effect. The current cooling up so high isn’t quite a record yet, which was set in 2008.
Did you watch the presentation or just run off of my rhetoric and your own poor grasp of her work?
0.1% decrease in heat output is not the issue and never has been. A collapse in the magnetic field strength lowers the ability of the sun to protect us from cosmic rays which break up clouds and allow heat to escape faster.
At best the IPCC is talking a 1.5 w/m2 warming from CO2 which is very debatable. Zharkova’s model implies a loss of 8 w/m2 from this effect.
That’s what I’m talking about. CO2 is at best a great insulator needed during times like these… seriously, go drink some milk or whatever it is that makes you fart…. more methane now.
Tom, good article. I have seen some data where scientists (real ones, not the fake global warming types) are saying that sun activity is 98% of our climate fluctuations. In fact, they are predicting global cooling for the next couple of decades due to low solar activity.
Thanks H2O… I have operated on that basic premise for years and watching this play out will be fascinating because ultimately when you push a fake reality too far it breaks and the backlash against it will be far worse than the purveyors of it can imagine.
Tom, the point is that it’s already an ongoing program, and has been for years. “Chemtrails” = geoengineering, the most common form of which is SAI. What we observe in the skies almost every day is exactly what’s described in the scientific papers, patents, and books by geoengineering advocates. You’ve made a perfectly rational blog post about how insane it *would* be to do such a thing… presumably you’d be even more opposed to the fact that it’s already being done. To properly condemn the proposal but remain silent about the actuality is not logical.
If that makes me a ‘cuck’ or whatever, I’m willing to accept that.
Dr James Hanson of NASA was the first to start the hysteria particularly at a Senate hearing where the room A/C was turned off and the heat turned on.
Dr Michael Mann of U Penn created the Hockey Stick graph that is the core of the IPCC reports. The data manipulation in the Hockey Stick has been exposed as bad math and data manipulation.
So far little proper science has been performed, tried, tested and repeated, and most of the computer models don’t have all the variables necessary to give reliable results.
With Hi-bypass jet engines, 80% of the thrust is created by the fan. The cold air output of the fan swirls the air around the hot core exhaust. At the altitude the condensation of the core exhaust is swirled around and from the ground looks like the donuts-on-a-rope. If you look at the con trail at altitude, it is a big swirl. Since Hi-bypass jet engines have been around since 1969, they have gotten larger and the bypass ratio has been greater with each generation. “Chem trails” are just con trails, primarily condensed water vapor from the burning of jet fuel, just like old WW2 bombers would generate from avgas.
Re the reality of chemtrails,
You simply haven’t (or chosen not) to do your homework and to shoot from the hip (but you ain’t no Wyatt Earp). The following 9 minute video is a compilation of over a score of planes laying down chemtrails taken by other pilots in the air.
They obviously are not contrails and some videos show the trails being emitted by ports not part of the engines. The primary purpose of chemtrails is to convert the atmosphere into an ionic plasma, which is necessary for the HAARP ionic heaters around the planet to be effectively weaponized. But this comment section is not the place to give a detailed presentation.
Any change too big will change global water current systems and doom Europe into colder, much colder climate.
Oh wait, also false science. Europe will be the only place surviving because we have a massive waterbody around us.
Spraying has been going on for a long time. People just prefer not to acknowledge. Photos and documentation can be found at geoengineeringwatch.org.
Using “Global Warming” and “science” in the same sentence is simply absurd.
Agreed on so may levels.
So, the intellectual morons who wrote the paper want to make ACTUAL “chemtrails”? And they wrote that up without it being a parody or satire? Insane.
“You don’t have to be an astro-physicist to understand the logic of her presentation. Spend the 93 minutes. It’s worth every second.”
I could make out only about every third word, what with her heavy accent and the video’s poor sound quality. Every now and then I could understand a complete sentence, but overall I found the video an exercise in frustration.
really? Because I understood every word and those words were fascinating. Then again, I’m in the business.
Nobody is denying that the climate changes, what is being contested is the notion that punitive carbon taxes, and the wholesale transfer of middle class wealth to the politically connected “green energy” barons will have any effect on it.
The Climate has been changing long before humans appeared on the planet and will continue to do so long after we disappear.
How many global warming disaster predictions have the AGW alarmists made since the Al Gore movie?
Three, four, five hundred?
If the global warming alarmist make enough of them, the law of averages dictates that some of them is will eventually catch up with a naturally occurring climate phenomenon.
Reasonable people don’t doubt science.
Reasonable people doubt faulty politically driven science where public funding drives the manufactured results and the manufactured results drives the public funding.
Thank you for another excellent piece, Tom.
The IPCC models exaggerate warming by >50%. Most of the claimed warming is due to adjustments to the raw data anyway.
Most have noticed the AGW spokesmen seldom give numbers apart from model forecasts, because the actual numbers do not support their hypothesis.
There has been no significant warming for 20 years as you can see from the satellite record here:
Recently on WUWT Willis Eschenbach pointed out that the official figures for CA showed the temperature had risen 2/100 of a degree over the last decade. That is roughly the same between your feet and head due to change in altitude. They apparently prefer to spend $billions on repairing the damage than much less on forest management and fire prevention.
The CO2 levels had dropped to near starvation values for plants before the industrial revolution and now satellite images show the whole world is greening.
The sun is entering a cooler period and several, including Dr. Valentina Zharkova have forecast we may be in for a mini ice age. There are good solutions for industrialized countries such as vertical farming (The Dutch have already started) that will be helped by the “new fire” LENR that looks like being commercial in 2019. The third world would not do well.
Martin Armstrong’s monster computer works tracking everything in the world, and here is the latest on GLOBAL COOLING!
You must log in to post a comment.