Volcanic eruptions, like this one at Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, are known to have global cooling effects. In October, researchers will test a man-made volcano that might eventually be used as a temporary defense against the devastating effects of climate change.
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Next month, researchers in the U.K. will start to pump water nearly a kilometer up into the atmosphere, by way of a suspended hose.
The experiment is the first major test of a piping system that could one day spew sulfate particles into the stratosphere at an altitude of 20 kilometers, supported by a stadium-size hydrogen balloon. The goal is geoengineering, or the "deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment" in the words of the Royal Society of London, which provides scientific advice to policymakers. In this case, researchers are attempting to re-create the effects of volcanic eruptions to artificially cool Earth.
The $30,000 test, part of a project called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE), is inspired by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. That volcano spewed 20 million tons of sulfate particles into the atmosphere, cooling Earth by 0.5 degree Celsius for 18 months. If the British feasibility tests are successful, the balloon-and-hose contraption could be used to inject additional particles into the stratosphere, thereby reflecting more of the sun's energy back into space, and hopefully curbing some of the effects of global warming.
"This is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab and into the field," lead scientist Matthew Watson said Tuesday during a press conference in London. "We are still decades away—and I do mean decades—from doing real geoengineering." Watson said his team still needs to determine which substances would work best at reflecting light, how much is needed to have an effect, and the possible unintended consequences of injecting the particles into the atmosphere, such as acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.
October's tests will mainly focus on whether the balloon-and-hose design could be an effective method to deliver the sunlight-reflecting particles. At an airfield in Norfolk, England, that is no longer in use, a helium blimp will hoist a regular pressure-washer hose one kilometer off the ground. An off-the-shelf pressure washer will pump up 1.8 liters of tap water per minute, to a maximum of 190 liters, says Hunt, which will evaporate or fall down to the ground locally. The researchers will monitor the performance of the system, and use the data to design the larger 20-kilometer-high setup.
In the past scientists have proposed similar atmospheric delivery methods using guns, airplanes, rockets and chimneys. In 2009 Russian scientists even tested airplane delivery on a small scale. But Hugh Hunt, a SPICE engineer at the University of Cambridge, said the balloon-and-hose design appears to be the most cost-effective option. Even when scaled up, the team expects the simple design to cost around $5 billion, in comparison with the $100 billion needed to launch thousands of high-altitude aircraft.
The water tests are expected to be harmless, but several environmental groups have criticized the plan—and geoengineering in general. Last year, the United Nation's Convention on Biological Diversity issued a statement forbidding geoengineering research that may impact biodiversity. The U.K. accepted that statement, but the SPICE experiment does not violate any international agreements due to its small scale, says Jason Blackstock, a physicist at Canada's Center for International Governance Innovation.
Nevertheless, the Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) is calling the tests internationally irresponsible. In a written statement, they called on the British government to shut down the project, adding: "This experiment is only phase one of a much bigger plan that could have devastating consequences, including large changes in weather patterns such as deadly droughts."
Alan Robock, a Rutgers University meteorologist, shares some of those concerns. He has created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people. It is premature to conduct such field experiments, Robock says. More computer modeling should be done first, he adds, to determine how injected particles might interact with the ozone layer and the hydrologic cycle.
What is Geoengineering and Why Is It Considered a Climate Change Solution?
Can Geoengineering Save the World from Global Warming?
Geoengineering Too 'Immature' to Combat Climate Change
Is Water Vapor in the Stratosphere Slowing Global Warming?
Stratospheric Pollution Helps Slow Global Warming
52 Comments
Add Commentuh, couldn't we just have left the sulphur in diesel we burn here in the us? I seem to recall sulfate particles cause cooling, yet since the 70s we've been removing sulfur from our diesel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, man. Sulfates are toxic, if you breathe them. So we're gonna put 'em way up high... where we can't breathe them... erm... & they won't settle down thru the atmosphere in rain or anything... er...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight.
I thought we said we weren't gonna geo-engineer our CO^2 probs. 'Cuz we, like, you know, man, we like know sweet FA about how the whole system works & ... what if we screw up & can't put it back like it was?
Sigh...
No matter. I just have to keep slapping myself & reminding myself that we're all gonna die anyway when we destroy the seas that support all life on Earth; and we're well on our way to that.
:-/
Science at its worst. Why not just reduce/eliminate the emissions we KNOW are fueling global warming?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis quick-fix business seldom achieves the intended goal and often creates new unforeseen problems. "Let's replace all the horses with fuel-burning vehicles that need manufacturing and repair facilities, refined fuel and lubricants, tires and roadways, laws and enforcement ... we'll work hard to achieve planned obsolescence ... and we'll fight making them safe or efficient because it costs us money!"
Risky business on a global scale doesn't have a great track record.
This is dumb. If we are not willing to do what is necessary to conserve our biosphere we deserve to die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that is necessary is to control our population, by educating women and giving them equal rights we can achieve this. In the mean time we got to let a lot of people die from starvation. Charity is cruelty.
Couple of thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSooner or later, something like this will be done. I used to think it was a really bad idea, but we are not going to reduce emissions quickly enough to avoid major problems. We need to reduce emissions quickly, but we also need to be prepared to react to a tipping point. Suppose at some point we discover that the Siberian sea has started releasing more CO2 equivalent of methane than all of human industry, we will have no choice but to try to put the brakes on that. It might not work, but we'd have to try.
It is becoming more apparent that society will not get serious about CO2 reductions until things turn bad, and there is always a lag. Things will get worse for a few decades after emissions stop. So, if we don't react until things are bad, we'll have to do some purposeful geoengineering (as opposed to the accidental that we are doing now) to prevent things from getting really bad. I think it would be better to have some idea what is more likely to work when that time comes.
A problem would be if China, the US, Russia, and/or others decide to do this on their own. Two reasons, a) it could put us on a climate roller-coaster if the efforts are not coordinated, b) it is a pretty sure bet that something bad will happen to some country shortly after geoengineering starts, causally related or not. If a rival country suffers shortly after a country does GE, the odds of a war are high. If India implements GE and the next year Pakistan suffers a catastrophic flood or drought...well, they are both nuclear states.
Science is telling us all to stop emissions ASAP now, but I don't see enough people listening. It isn't bad science, it is a reaction to the general populace not listening to good science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSulfates stay up longer and have more effect the higher up they are put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom an engineering standpoint, I have a hard time envisioning a pump capable of supporting a column of water 20 km high. You'd almost have to pump it in stages, but the pumps would be heavy. Maybe if you turned it to an aerosol and then pumped it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't help but think this is the beginning of a B movie that ends in the self destruction of the human race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSulphur SO2 when in contact with water forms H2SO4, or sulphuric acid. People who live in cities like L.A. suffer from scarring of the lungs after years of breathing in SO2, which leads to all kinds of diseases. Acid rain is the leading cause of deforestation and immune deficiency related destruction of the marine ecosystem. So, no, dude, we would prefer not to put more sulphur into the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is what I don't get. Climatologist say swear humans are accelerating global warming. (Of course I've yet to see any convincing interpretation of empirical data that unequivocally separates man's input from what is going on naturally.) If these climatologist are so convinced that their modeling is almost perfect, why can't they just use the models and determine precisely what will happen if we add materials to the atmosphere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, we only have one lab model, and that's the earth itself. We're already running an experiment on it with everything we're spewing into it, so why not add a little more. What could it possibly hurt?
(Blatant skepticism intentional.)
this idea and all you 'warmers' are jokes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see a pattern here. If industry does this it's pollution and the eco-jihadists say it'll kill us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut if the eco-jihadists propose the same thing, its touted as a planet saver.
Typical double standard and hypocrisy inherent in eco-jihadist mumbling. I propose that eco-jihadists be given nothing sharper to play with than a cotton puffball.
@ChrisG - u said "From an engineering standpoint, I have a hard time envisioning a pump capable of supporting a column of water 20 km high"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had the same doubts, and was hoping they were well founded, but it only takes about 30,000 psi to overcome 20 km of head pressure. That pressure is available in a pressure washer available at the hardware store. Now, pumping any significant volume that high, becomes a whole new question.
This is really going to happen. I was glad to see in one of your comments that you see the prospect of war as a result of geo-engineering. But you seem pretty calm about unintended consequences. If we pump all that sulphur into the atmosphere and then realize it was a horrid, tragic mistake, it is irreversible.
There is a big difference between "we must do something" and "we must do anything, regardless of the cost or consequences", don't you think?
Our track record for unintended consequences as a species is tragic enough, is it really wise to gamble on the premise that we know enough to guarantee that we couldn't have overlooked anything?
We stopped spewing sulfur for some darned good reasons. Same with CFCs. Should we start spewing those again to start enlarging the ozone hole again to slow the Antarctic melt?
I just don't understand how anyone can advocate fighting poison with poison.
If the worst AGW predictions are true, in time, billions will die, and THAT will reduce carbon emissions. Are you really willing to bet that spewing tons of poison into the upper atmosphere won't kill even more billions?
I'm old enough that I won't likely live to see the end. I think it would be poetically ironic if mankind finally killed itself, not with war or greed, but with a misguided attempt to "save the planet". I'm a big fan of irony, but not big enough to support such foolishness.
Did you see Solyent Green in the '70s? It was prescient in that the report in the movie fortold of the dying sea as a reason for the need for Soylent Green. Ugh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who come out against this show their true colors as being just as anti-science as the climate change skeptics, even worse actually. To be against this is to be the equivalent of getting to middle age, being diagnosed with a heart condition because you spent the first half of your life eating poorly, but rather than considering any treatment, saying you'll just stop eating the red meat and trusting in god to save you. If climate change is real, then it's too late to stop it by cutting back on anything. Full stop. The "it's almost too late if we don't all come together now" scare story is BS. Maybe we'll somehow coordinate a global effort without provoking a worldwide economic collapse that results in millions dying today rather than a hundred years from now. I'm sort of skeptical that's going to happen. Maybe we'll get lucky, but what, we deserve to die if curtailing emissions doesn't work? And it'll take us as long to figure out if it's conclusively working as it did to discover the problem in the first place. Don't you think there should be a backup plan? You guys sound like fundamentalists with your "do it the one true way or die". We should be putting a dollar into geoengineering for every dollar we spend on any other climate change efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see.... so you are in favour of dismantling industry to stop a global warming experiment, but you see no problem in conducting a grand global cooling geo engineering excercise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI rest my case as to hypocrisy inherent the AGW movement. You bought into the whole thing hook, line and sinker. Now what just for sake of argument, that the CERN experiments are correct and the Sun controls climate on the planet. Then the massive AGW reversal and geo-engineering projects are incalculable wastes of time and money.
Using the cautionary principle, the stakes are far too high to proceed with any AGW/Geoengineering until CERN's results are independently verified.
And if you don't want to wait, you better ask yourself what you and the entire AGW movement are afraid of... irrelevancy perhaps.
Sit down, shut up and hang on and let the Cern people do their thing.
Reading some scientific articles is like reading political articles. Two sides line up and oppose each other. Geeze.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat special interest benefits from the illusion that something like this could solve our pollution problems from fossil fuels? Who could that be???????
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe they are even considering this. Man, Oh man why do I have such a bad feeling about this. These nutcases are going to e the death of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a stupid idea. Sulfur dioxide is a pollutant worse than CO2. And it won't work. A 20-km high hose containing water will have a pressure of over 28,000 psi at the bottom. An ultra high pressure washer hose can only hold 5,400 psi. The hose will burst.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSkepticalKen,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for doing the math; I was being lazy. Sounds like a difficult, but not unsolvable engineering problem.
I see it a bit like chemotherapy. It's toxic, but if you are dying, you hope that it cures you before it kills you. It is readily reversible; nature has performed the experiment many times.
I would much rather it not need to be used, because the risks of unintended results are high. But there is such a huge gap between our increasing emissions and the reductions that need to happen in order to avoid some potentially game-over scenarios, that I suspect it will be used. For instance, if China finds that the rain band has shifted north out of its agricultural land, and that leaves it with the capacity to feed only 750,000 of its billion+ population, and their scientists determine they can make in rain on their land by injecting sulfates, I don't think anyone will be able to stop them. The same is true for some other countries as well.
Re:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the worst AGW predictions are true, in time, billions will die, and THAT will reduce carbon emissions. "
If we don't get serious about emission reductions, billions will die based on the middle-of-the-road predictions. That will certainly reduce emissions; we may end up with a nuclear cooling event in the process to boot. Geoengineering will be a calculated risk at best.
Re:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...if mankind finally killed itself, not with war or greed, ..."
Oh, it won't be the weather that kills us. Historically, whenever man has had to choose between starvation or raiding, they raid every time.
Maybe my comment wasn't clear, friend. My point is that if we accept global warming is real, we better have a backup plan other than some Pollyanna plan for cutting emissions. I'm not for dismantling anything. In fact, my litmus test for whether a global warming activist is motivated by science or by politics would entirely come down to their position on geoengineering. Someone who believes in global warming but is against geoengineering solutions to the problem is anti-science and anti-industry, full stop. They've simply picked up the global worming cause as a way to push an anti-industrial agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? So we have absolute scientific proof that geoengineering will work and will not have any unintended consequences? I'd like to see the references for that science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan playing God is a dangerous thing, and when an experiment is unleashed upon the planet earth it is the greatest atrocity available to man. This is beyond any democracy and beyond any "Good Science".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like global warming. Opens up more space for people to live in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhatsup
By altering the composition and thermodynamics of the atmosphere with CO2, etc., we are already performing a geoengineering experiment, just not intentionally or with any consideration of what the science related to it says it will do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook Guys, - there's ben some very Sirius Enguneering that done gone into this cientific proposul.. For example the waterpump used to push water 3600 ft high is an HD pressure-washer from HomeDepot.. The pressure Hose is 150 lengths of 30ft HD pressure hose from HomeDepot. The Balloon is from GoodYear, the PHD's & scientists are from Harvard & Yale, - the govn't Funding is from ignorant taxpayers - now what can possibly go wrong with this Deep Scientific Inquirey
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing, scientists have discovered how to stop the planet from warming - blot out the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change affects different societies to different degrees. An action such as this is unlikely to reverse the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is trapping heat, but we need light for life. This measure aims to reduce the heating effect, by reducing the quantity of light we receive. But this might be a catastrophic move. What if the particles interfere with reproduction of a bee or we may be unaware that certain frequencies of light are necessary for plant growth cycles? The possibilities are endless.
Remember, we have already experienced a very significant drop in evaporation, indicating that the passage of light is already restricted by other particles in the atmosphere.
Finally, to what extent should an American or a European be permitted to adjust the climate for his own purposes. Climate change does not threaten our species, it merely threatens the structure, size and order of our societies.
Former FBI Chief Ted Gunderson Says Chemtrail Death Dumps Must Be Stopped
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFormer FBI Chief, Ted L. Gunderson, makes a statement regarding the chemtrail "death dumps", otherwise know as air crap, on January 12, 2011. Ted says the following: "The death dumps, otherwise known as chemical trails, are being dropped and sprayed throughout the United States and England, Scotland, Ireland, and Northern Europe. I have personally seen them not only in the United States, but in Mexico and in Canada. Birds are dying around the world. Fish are dying by the hundreds of thousands around the world. This is genocide. This is poison. This is murder by the United Nations. This element within our society that is doing this must be stopped. I happen to know of two of the locations where the airplanes are that dump this crap on us. Four of the planes are out of the Air National Guard in Lincoln, Nebraska. And, the other planes are out of Fort Sill, Oklahoma. I personally have observed the planes that were standing still in Nebraska - Lincoln, Nebraska - at the Air National Guard. They have no markings on them. They are huge, bomber-like airplanes with no markings. This is a crime: a crime against humanity, a crime against America, a crime against the citizens of this great country. The must be stopped. WHAT IS WRONG WITH CONGRESS? This has an affect on their population, and their people, and their friends, and their relatives, and themselves. What's wrong with them? What's wrong with the pilots who are flying these airplanes and dumping this crap, this poison, on their own families? Somebody has to do something about it. Somebody in Congress has to step forward and stop it now. Thank you. I'm Ted Gunderson." For more details, visit http://www.aircrap.org.
_________________
www.infowars.com
The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.
The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
According to the LennTech website, Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.
Even the lead scientist heading up the latest experiment in the UK, Mark Watson, admits that injecting sulphur into the atmosphere could lead to acid rain, ozone depletion or weather pattern disruption.
The Canada-based Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) responded to the announcement of the test by calling on the British government to shut down the research. This experiment is only phase one of a much bigger plan that could have devastating consequences, including large changes in weather patterns such as deadly droughts, the group said in a written statement.
http://www.infowars.com/scientists-to-create-artificial-volcano-in-bid-to-geoengineer-climate/comment-page-2/#comment-2720512
Rutgers University meteorologist Alan Robock also, created computer simulations indicating that sulfate clouds could potentially weaken the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing rain that irrigates the food crops of billions of people.
Of course, killing millions of people in the third world through unintended consequences of geoengineering is probably seen as a price worth paying for the likes of John P. Holdren, White House science czar and strong geoengineering proponent, given that he and other luminaries in the global warming movement want to see global population drastically reduced by means of a planetary regime carrying out forced sterilization and other draconian population control measures.
Ummmmm, okay.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, are they going to use sea water or fresh? Potable or polluted?
And, with the drought in Texas, may I suggest they move the experiment? Just a little bit westward? Please.
.
Hmm, I think they should've done some extensive computer simulations first, and then run it a couple more times to see what kinds of things could potentially happen. After all, doing something on this scale certainly isn't going to have any kind of unintended consequences right?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like how DDT was supposed to kill mosquitoes, Africanized bees in the Americas was supposed to help honey production, and how the rampant abuse/misuse of antibiotics had no kinds of unforeseen problems too right?
Granted, they didn't have computer simulations to test these things out, but still, you don't want to cause 2 new problems while trying to fix 1 in a situation like this. Are the scientists conducting this test going to accept the blame and fix the problem if something really drastic happened that affects the lives of millions? Or are they just going to shrug their shoulders, and go "whoops, our bad." and sweep this under the carpet?
I've got a great idea. Why don't we build billions of these, use evaporation to pull the H2O up, use sunlight to generate free-energy, and use it to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. And the excess energy could be used to fabricate a strong light building material. We could install them everywhere on unused land. Maybe we could even make them self replicating. We could call them "Trees."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not as opposed to everything labeled geoengineering as most people. The word could include everything we do intentionally to effect the planet, often to try to compensate for the bad geoengineering we've already done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this project seems like beyond the bottom of the barrel. We'd be using SOx pollution to compensate for CO2, in a way that would require continued human industry, of which I'm not too confident these days. Sulfur is not in short supply (and is the major cause of acid rain). If we really want more of it, wouldn't it at least be simpler just to burn it, on some deserted island?
Better, if we're not able to intentionally cut back on polluting industries, what was so wrong with the idea of iron fertilization of oceans? It seems like a very low-tech solution would be possible, present ships towing floating "time-release" capsules of probably rust. I think there are many other possibilities, while we wait for the last bits of fossil fuels to be pumped or dug out. Lately they include solar cells printed on paper. How much better can you do than that?
Of course part of the problem is that any world saving innovation will mean further growth in population, pollution and destruction. So I tend toward favoring world economic collapse and starting over with some new paradigms.
Chris G, it seems to me obtaining experimental data has merits. Pumping 20 km up sure sounds impractical - it would require pumps set up in series or the piping would have to withstand in excess of 28,000 psi, which is of course ridiculous. Even if they were to set up say 6 pumps in series, the upper pumps would have to be spaced along the conduit, and this would involve power cables and of course maintenance - it sure sounds a bit daffy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not panic. It is just a small scale experiment. Moreover we are all members of the global "research" community experimenting with the tolerance of the Earth environment against the presence of humans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe aren't ruining the environment fast enough by inaction; we now have to take a proactive position to destroy our only home? What are these people thinking? The only way to undo the damage done by the release of CO2 is to stop releasing CO2!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNobody here seems to doubt the "undeniable truth" of AGW. Apart from a Nobel Laureate ( not here) who recently resigned from the IPCC or similar, according to a news report I saw yesterday. And not for health reasons. Gentlemen, the whole issue is a fraud. "Follow the Money" to see who the usual suspects are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr, check this one out for yourselves...
NOAA Palaeoclimatology World Data Centre. Where you will be amazed, I hope, to see the undeniable evidence that world climate follows regular cyclic patterns. Dating from 450,000 years ago-before most of you were born, I admit, but unequivocal evidence of five regular-as-clockwork cycles, oscillating through +/- 6 degrees. We are presently a degree or two from the expected max, so we have a ways to go yet. Having said that, all indications are, that we are entering a Maunder-Minimum phase, ie a period of a century or so of significant cooling, which injecting particles into the stratosphere will not ameliorate.
Please, please, go back to first principles. The latest science, purposely excluded from IPCC summaries, shows all too clearly that Earth climate and temperature is almost entirely dictated to us by a shining orb sitting 93 million miles away.
A revelatory and easy-to-read synopsis of the data supporting this thesis can be found in Peter Taylor's 2009 work entitled "Chill".
Buy it, and begin the process of turning the tide against the hubristic collective insanity which is hell bent on turning this Earth into a frozen wasteland.
Stupid Idea. We spend billions to reduce acid rain, and the UK spends $30,000 to increase it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant sulfates in the air, just ask the Chinese to burn dirtier coal.
In case you didn't know it, water vapor is the biggest global warming gas and they're increasing during this test.
Who is going to have their hand on the thermostat? What are the effects on atmospheric circulation as sulfates are added to the atmosphere in irregular distribution patterns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think iron fertilization of oceans will work. The phytoplanktons will be eaten by zooplanktons, krills, whales, jellyfishes, bacteria, etc. They are at the bottom of the food chain. And when they die, they release CO2 and absorb oxygen. They deplete the oxygen in the sea and cause the dead zones, parts of the sea with only dead fishes due to lack of oxygen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...by educating women and giving them equal rights we can achieve this."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHah! How "optimistic" to believe what is obviously not gonna work. How many highly educated women behave "responsibly" is a question I'd love to see answered: honestly!
I live in a university town were everyone has a degree: highly educated men and women I've known personally for nearly 40 years - typically - behave like morons. That irresponsibility definitely includes "sexual behaviors."
A (very) small scale experiment of this kind would actually be helpful - IF - the results and conclusions are reported - HONESTLY. But I agree: spewing more crap into the air hardly seems like "Science" or even smart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously, climate scientists are not real scientists. An "artificial volcano" is another example of their silly "science". Pumping salty, dirty water into the atmosphere is how a hurricane works.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAirplanes are already adding water to the atmosphere, water that is cooling the Earth. Also, since global cooling is actually in effect, the "silly" scientists are curing the wrong illness. We know that global cooling is in effect since sea level is rising. When more snow falls at the Earth's poles, "global warming" will start a new ice age. Real scientists should realize that more glaciers are the Earth's response to more heat. A system (the Earth climate) reacts to oppose change. Glaciers are melting now because global cooling is in effect now.
This endeavor rates a big F****ing UGH in my book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPutting the sulpher back in jet fuel would be a lot easier. It would be released at altitude, without the need for all this new infrastructure. The atmosphere can be gratually titrated by the gov't calling for changes in the sulpher content of the fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Beginning", Damarch? We're in well into the second act, as screenplays go. The third act is where we try the desperation measures of creating 'artificial volcanoes'. And the fourth act is where it all goes to hell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAaaargh. Maybe you're right, Chris. But we have a specific word for hubris because humans are plagued by it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just feel like wandering off, muttering, "We're all gonna die... we're all gonna die... we're all gonna die..." But they'd probably lock me up.
It is wrong to spray chemtrails in the sky. We live in a democracy and this undemocratic spraying of chemicals in the skies must end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHIS IS A TOTAL LIE...Matthew Watson :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is one of the first times that people have taken geoengineering out of the lab and into the field," lead scientist Matthew Watson said Tuesday during a press conference in London. "We are still decades awayand I do mean decadesfrom doing real geoengineering."
If anyone believes Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) hasn't been going on since the 1990s they're seriously deluded. (search: Project Cloverleaf)And if they are buying into the idea that it's merely to protect the planet from 'global warming' they're just plain idiots. It's purely a Military operation.
This is only a tiny part of what I've collected in hundreds of my own photographs, valid documentaries, scientific, and military documents:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
www.sodahead.com/united-states/electromagnetic-frequency-mind-control-weapons-a-connection-to-the-birdfish-and-mammal-kills/question-1428233/
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/03files/HAARP_Project_Ground_Based_Star_Wars.html
Search for the USAF document "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025" save it and study it carefully. It's written in sanitized government language as if all the bad guys are 'out there' instead of right here in the USA.
Just when you think it can't possibly be any worse...it is.