

The Science of Global Climate Change is Irrelevant in Society

A conclusion of three ‘Geoengineering of the Planet’ seminars at the UW. There will be more.

We’ve discussed the topics of the first two geoengineering seminars this winter at UW in this thread, plus associated conclusions like the omnipresence of Scientific Illiteracy in our society.  First, we heard the suggestion that to mitigate global warming and associated climate changes, we might change the radiative properties of the atmosphere by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away some solar radiation. The next speaker gave a summary of global weather/climate modification by grandiose engineering from seeding clouds and storms to using nuclear bombs to obliterate the Arctic ice.

On 2/11/11 a summary was presented of current thinking on what we might do if global warming gets really serious, as quite a few experts forecast. A very sophisticated and politically savvy scientist, Dr Jane Long presented what she had learned from sitting on a high-level panel that discussed the pros and cons of mitigating GW by either Carbon Dioxide Reduction  or Radiative Properties Modification (with aerosols).

The scariest part was that she dismissed CDR in a few sentences, as something that has become impossible to implement in suitable times (despite James Hansen’s optimism). She thought that maybe it will be done in 100 years.

She then spent the rest of the time discussing the problems with radiative particle injection, a global cooling solution suggested by the observed effects of volcanic aerosols.  (I suppose that Ed Teller might have suggested a way of accomplishing this “naturally” by putting a nuclear bomb in a large volcano like Mt. Rainier.)  But a more judicious approach would be to inject smaller amounts of aerosols and measure what they do before injecting the theoretical amount needed to counteract GW. For instance, they might find a decrease in sunlight in critical agricultural areas such as India that exacerbates our problem feeding our exploding populations. Or the wind dynamics might flush the aerosols toward specific areas where it will cool leaving other areas to really heat up, the process that leads to big storms. But the speaker invoked the fact that the climate is too complicated to properly evaluate this ‘experiment’, greatly limiting this approach.

Consequently, she warned that the “Frankenstein” experiment might be done.  In the case that GW gets so bad that the people demand something be done (in the case of lots of people dying from continuous weather disruptions, large sea level rises…)  this leaves just doing the whole experimental modification based on inadequate science.  Sort of like the fact that China continues to do a lot of cloud seeding to produce rain despite the fact that there is no proof that it works (it probably doesn’t). The people are grateful to the government for doing something. This parlays into the basic observation that she made: that any solution tried by many governments is, and will be, independent of science. As we have noted, the electorate, their representatives and judiciary are basically SI and base their decisions on ideology and irrelevant emotions.

Listening to this expert, I felt amazed that the climate scientists and their committees just accept this fact. But judging by the reaction to several columns in this blog, it certainly is an accurate assessment.

I’m sorry to be the bearer of such bad news. I hope that there is something we’ve left out?

Categories: Uncategorized
Robert Brown