© Unknown
Scientists who are working on various concepts for "geo-engineering" the climate are almost comically eager to explain that they are not trying to come up with a substitute for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the main cause of man-made global warming.
They are just researching backup systems that we might need if the reductions don't happen fast enough.
"It's hard to imagine a situation except a dire emergency where this will be used, but in order to have that conversation sensibly we need to provide some evidence-based research," Dr. Matt Watson of Bristol University told the British Science Festival in Bradford, England, last week.
He is planning to test the feasibility of an "artificial volcano" that injects sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, so where better to try it than at Sculthorpe air force base in the pancake-flat county of Norfolk?
Why an "artificial volcano"?
Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, who first suggested this method of cooling the planet five years ago, pointed out that big volcanic explosions inject millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, where they reflect enough incoming sunlight to lower the temperature at the surface.
Comment: So just to inject a little sanity into this discussion:
Point 1.) CO
2 emissions have a
very small, if not negligible effect on the earth's climate. It appears that
cosmic rays may be the driving factor behind global temperatures
Point 2.) Recently we've seen a weakening in the sun's magnetic field indicated by the
lack of sunspot activity during this solar cycle. The weaker the sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays bombard earth. This leads to
greater cloud cover and thus a
cooling of the planet. In fact, that is exactly what we're
seeing today.
Point 3.) Give the above two points, blasting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere isn't only a bad idea from a pollution standpoint, it may actually speed up the onset of this global cooling trend we're already seeing; a trend that could lead to a new ice age regardless of what corrupt science has in store for us.
Comment: So just to inject a little sanity into this discussion:
Point 1.) CO2 emissions have a very small, if not negligible effect on the earth's climate. It appears that cosmic rays may be the driving factor behind global temperatures
Point 2.) Recently we've seen a weakening in the sun's magnetic field indicated by the lack of sunspot activity during this solar cycle. The weaker the sun's magnetic field, the more cosmic rays bombard earth. This leads to greater cloud cover and thus a cooling of the planet. In fact, that is exactly what we're seeing today.
Point 3.) Give the above two points, blasting toxic chemicals into the atmosphere isn't only a bad idea from a pollution standpoint, it may actually speed up the onset of this global cooling trend we're already seeing; a trend that could lead to a new ice age regardless of what corrupt science has in store for us.