Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The first of its kind involving ship-based dispersal in open ocean waters—scientists released approximately 65,000 liters (about 17,000 gallons) of sodium hydroxide (NaOH, a strong alkaline substance, often called caustic soda or lye) into the Gulf of Maine over an area of roughly 1 km². They also added a smaller amount (760 liters) of fluorescent rhodamine dye to track the dispersion of the alkaline plume across a larger monitoring zone of about 3,600 km².
The first of its kind involving ship-based dispersal in open ocean waters. Scientists released approximately 65,000 liters (about 17,000 gallons) of sodium hydroxide (NaOH, a strong alkaline substance, often called caustic soda or lye) into the Gulf of Maine over an area of roughly 1 km².
They also added a smaller amount (760 liters) of fluorescent rhodamine dye to track the dispersion of the alkaline plume across a larger monitoring zone of about 3,600 km².
This is an example of ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE), a proposed marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) geoengineering technique.
The ocean naturally absorbs CO₂ from the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid that contributes to ocean acidification (lowering pH).
Over geological timescales, weathering of rocks adds alkalinity, helping the ocean draw down and store more CO₂ as stable bicarbonate ions (essentially dissolved baking soda).
OAE accelerates this by deliberately adding alkaline materials to increase ocean pH in targeted areas, forcing additional CO₂ uptake from the air without relying on slow natural processes.
The goal is scalable carbon removal to help mitigate climate change, alongside emissions reductions, not a complete “fix” or replacement for cutting greenhouse gases.
Results presented at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in February 2026:
The addition led to measurable extra CO₂ drawdown from the atmosphere: between 2–10 tonnes confirmed in the first few days after release, with estimates up to around 50 tonnes total over time.
Monitoring showed no evidence of harm to marine life or ecosystems in the affected area, based on biological and chemical assessments.
The “bright red” appearance mentioned in some reports likely comes from the rhodamine dye used for tracking (not the sodium hydroxide itself, which is typically clear or white in solution).
Context and ControversyWhile the trial was small-scale and controlled (equivalent to a tiny fraction of natural ocean processes), it has drawn attention and criticism:
Supporters see it as promising proof-of-concept data for a potential large-scale CDR tool.
Critics (including some in skeptical or alternative media) highlight risks of unintended ecological impacts from scaling up, questions about energy costs of producing sodium hydroxide, or broader concerns about “playing God” with geoengineering.
This experiment tested ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE), a geoengineering approach to marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR).
Oceans naturally absorb CO₂, but human emissions have acidified them (dropping average pH from ~8.2 pre-industrial to ~8.1 today).
OAE mimics natural rock weathering by adding alkaline substances to raise pH locally, enabling the ocean to pull in more CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it as stable bicarbonate.
Controversial geoengineering project sees scientists pump 65,000 litres of chemicals into the ocean to stop global warming
Last August, 65,000 litres of bright red chemicals were pumped into the Gulf of Maine – yet this wasn’t an enormous industrial disaster. The Daily Mail Online has the story.
Instead, it was a controversial geoengineering experiment that scientists claim could help to slow down global warming.
The oceans already hold around 38,000 billion tonnes of CO2, trapped as dissolved sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda.
The geoengineering method known as Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) aims to speed up this natural process by resetting the ocean’s pH.
Over four days, scientists added vast quantities of sodium hydroxide – an alkaline chemical tagged with a red dye – to the waters off the coast of Boston.
Making the ocean more alkaline should encourage it to absorb even more CO2 from the atmosphere.
However, critics have warned that the potential effects on marine life remain uncertain.
Gareth Cunningham, Director of Conservation and Policy at the Marine Conservation Society, told the Daily Mail: ‘These approaches are resource–intensive and their ecological impacts are still poorly understood.’
For years, scientists have put forward OAE as one of the leading potential solutions to climate change.
In theory, the novel approach could solve two problems at once by locking away excess CO2 from the atmosphere and fixing the oceans’ rising acidity.
Without an ‘antacid’ like sodium hydroxide to react with, CO2 dissolving in the oceans forms a mild acid that has slowly but surely reduced the pH level.
This is already having catastrophic effects on sea life, as the acid dissolves marine creatures’ shells, damages coral, and even wears away sharks’ teeth.
The LOC–NESS (Locking Ocean Carbon in the Northeast Shelf and Slope) project is the first large–scale experiment to test the impact of OAE in an open water setting.
With approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency and engagement with local fishers, scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution poured alkaline chemicals into the ocean 50 miles (80 km) off the Massachusetts coast.
They then used cutting–edge technology, including autonomous gliders, long–range autonomous underwater vehicles and shipboard sensors to track the spreading chemicals.
Over the next few days, the scientists measured 10 tonnes of carbon entering the water as the pH increased from 7.95 to 8.3 – matching pre–industrial levels.
In the best–case scenario, the researchers estimate that the sodium hydroxide would absorb about 50 tonnes of carbon over the next year, equivalent to the average yearly emissions of five UK citizens.
Principal investigator Adam Subhas, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, says: ‘These early results demonstrate that small–scale OAE deployments can be engineered, tracked, and monitored with high precision.
In The New York Times’ (NYT) op-ed, “Turns Out Air Pollution Was Good for Something,” Zeke Hausfather and David Keith argue that because sulfur particles from past industrial pollution once cooled the planet by reflecting sunlight, policymakers should now consider a deliberate version of that process. They suggest aircraft could inject sulfur into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling once provided by dirty smokestacks, pointing to volcanic eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991 as evidence the method would work. This idea is wrong-headed madness. Experience demonstrates geo-engineering ideas such as this have dangerous and unpredictable consequences.
A diagram of the geoengineering projects people have proposed to combat climate change. The laws and risks surrounding such projects are still uncertain. (Image credit: Diagram by Kathleen Smith/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
In The New York Times’ (NYT) op-ed, “Turns Out Air Pollution Was Good for Something,” Zeke Hausfather and David Keith argue that because sulfur particles from past industrial pollution once cooled the planet by reflecting sunlight, policymakers should now consider a deliberate version of that process. They suggest aircraft could inject sulfur into the upper atmosphere to mimic the cooling once provided by dirty smokestacks, pointing to volcanic eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991 as evidence the method would work. This idea is wrong-headed madness. Experience demonstrates geo-engineering ideas such as this have dangerous and unpredictable consequences.
The authors write that “geoengineering the climate in this way is not a new idea,” and claim that “a more modest approach” of maintaining present temperatures with controlled sulfur injections buying the world time for carbon dioxide reductions to continue.
But geoengineering by blocking the sun is a dangerous fool’s errand. First, the potential unintended consequences are enormous and unpredictable. Sulfur dioxide particles injected into the upper atmosphere would scatter sunlight differently depending on latitude. At middle to low latitudes, sunlight passes through less atmosphere, so scattering effects are modest. But at higher latitudes, sunlight travels through more atmosphere, amplifying scattering—just as sunsets turn red because of the increased distance light travels through more air and particles at low sun angles. Injecting reflective particles globally would therefore not create uniform cooling. It would over-cool the polar and sub-polar regions, while perhaps under-cooling equatorial areas. The result would be an uneven, artificial climate system with consequences no climate model can reliably predict.
These regional impacts would not just be academic. Farmers in Canada or Scandinavia might see shortened growing seasons. Populations in northern Russia could face colder winters. Developing nations in Africa or Asia could sue over disrupted rainfall patterns or crop failures. Geoengineering would open a legal and geopolitical Pandora’s box of claims, counterclaims, and lawsuits, as countries argue that someone else’s climate tinkering damaged their own livelihoods. Even Hausfather and Keith concede in their NYT op-ed that large-scale deployment “could exacerbate climate change in some locations, perhaps by shifting rainfall patterns.”
Aside from these uncertain consequences, one consequence of this scheme is certain, increased sulfur pollution, most likely resulting in acid rain which changes the pH of waters and damages buildings, statues, and other structures.
These papers together strongly suggest that geoengineering via sun-blocking/aerosol injection is not a benign or risk-free option and that its consequences are highly uncertain, with many potential negative side-effects that are difficult or impossible to predict. Deliberately blocking the sun is not a climate solution—it is climate roulette.
Even advocates of the idea admit it is nothing more than a Band-Aid. As Hausfather and Keith acknowledge, “sunlight reflection is no panacea” and “treats the symptoms of climate change but not the underlying disease.” They also admit the risk of political dependency: once started, stopping a geoengineering program could trigger rapid warming rebound, a scenario far more destabilizing than gradual warming itself.
Steve Milloy, writing in the Daily Caller, explained why this notion is absurd. In “Trump’s EPA Is Right To Be Skeptical Of ‘Sun-Blocking’,” he highlighted that sulfur dioxide particles are air pollution—pollution that once drove acid rain and deadly smog events. Milloy sulfur notes that particles eventually fall back to Earth, meaning a program of perpetual injections would be required. “It sounds like a great business model on paper,” he wrote, “but people can’t just launch potentially dangerous air pollutants into the sky without some sort of guidelines and monitoring.”
The unintended consequences are not only physical but political. If wealthy nations take it upon themselves to inject particles into the stratosphere, what happens if poorer nations see droughts or floods as a result? International lawsuits and even conflicts could follow. The specter of “climate weaponization” looms large—as Milloy noted, the ability to control sunlight could be seen as a tool of geopolitical leverage.
The NYT itself might have cooled to the idea. Shortly after the op-ed was first published, the title was changed from “A Responsible way to Cool the Planet” to “Turns Out Air Pollution Was Good for Something.” Perhaps other scientists raised similar concerns as have been highlighted here and the NYT decided to walk back the “responsible” part.
The bottom line is this: blocking the sun to cool the planet is an inherently dangerous idea. Sunlight is the basis of life on Earth. Corrupting its distribution and intensity will not stabilize climate but destabilize societies. History, common sense, and scientific warnings all converge on the same conclusion: geoengineering by aerosol injection is not a solution but an invitation to chaos.
The New York Times’s op-ed promoting intentional sulfur pollution is a reversal of decades of clean air progress, representing climate recklessness, not climate realism.
Geoengineering in the form of modifying weather happens. It can save decimation of farmer livelihoods by mitigating droughts, and it can risk the global food supply by reducing crop growth. Like nuclear fission, it’s useful in the hands of sane people working with the knowledge and assent of the wider community, or it has the potential to destroy much of what humankind has built if left in the hands of psychopaths. If we can approach it in a calm and rational manner, we may yet stop the psychopaths.
Geoengineering in the form of modifying weather happens. It can save decimation of farmer livelihoods by mitigating droughts, and it can risk the global food supply by reducing crop growth. Like nuclear fission, it’s useful in the hands of sane people working with the knowledge and assent of the wider community, or it has the potential to destroy much of what humankind has built if left in the hands of psychopaths. If we can approach it in a calm and rational manner, we may yet stop the psychopaths.
During the Second World War, bomber crews were said to hate the contrails their planes produced, providing white fingers across the sky that pointed enemy fighters directly to them. These have seemingly exploded across our skies as commercial air travel has multiplied, but like boiling frogs, surprisingly few really noticed until others pointed out the heat. Living in Geneva, Switzerland during the week-long grounding of aircraft due to the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland in 2010, we had clear spring skies for the first time. Not a trail, not a wisp of residual cloud. Normal, it turned out, was not natural.
Condensation trails, or contrails, are clouds formed from condensation and from the water and particles that are emitted from aircraft engine exhausts. Fine particles released in the right conditions form a nidus on which droplets can form in humid, cold air. Jet engines also emit water as a combustion product. The very low pressure on the upper wing surface, the reason airplanes stay up in the air, also allows water vapor to precipitate. This is well documented, almost as old as high-flying aircraft, and annoying when you want to photograph a good sunset in much of Europe or North America.
Contrails can contribute to cirrus cloud formation, while aircraft changing altitude can also create some really otherworldly holes in cloud layers, such as on airport approaches. Clouds come and go naturally, from the ground to the upper atmosphere, if the conditions are right. Aircraft just help the process. And as clouds have sharp edges (when viewed from a distance), contrails can seem to turn on and off for the same reason (temperature and humidity at various altitudes).
There is a school of thought that streaks across the sky, or most of them, only began to appear recently and are the result of nefarious intent – geoengineering. The theory is that a whole hidden industry exists to make chemicals, transport them to airports, install them on commercial (i.e., passenger) aircraft or place in fuel, and then release at certain times or in certain regions. This, performed at scale, would require thousands of willing people, who all remain silent on the issue. This is possible, but people talk, including pilots, fuellers, manufacturing workers, truck drivers and airport security guards, and is a little hard to imagine at scale. Part of an air force may follow some stupid government agenda, and perhaps does. But that is a tiny minority of flights.
However, airborne geoengineering does happen. It has for nearly a century, particularly with intent to provide rain during droughts or more routinely in arid inhabited regions. In Australia and the United States, for instance, government agencies have for many decades sprayed compounds such as silver iodide from an aircraft to precipitate water vapour and cause rain during droughts. The hope is to save cattle farmers from ruin or augment a city’s failing water supply. These are not bad things, while mass cattle death and bankruptcy often are.
Geoengineering can also be unbelievably stupid. The British Government is planning to fund high altitude geoengineering to block sunlight. This is a pet project of some very rich people who consider themselves geniuses and is a real thing – I have directly heard the discussions on similar projects from people who can pay for them. It is based on the interesting conviction that while all previous episodes of global warming were due to some natural phenomena, the current one is solely due to the work of man, and that somehow dimming sunlight by setting up a reflective layer in the upper atmosphere is therefore a good thing (not interfering with nature but saving it, supposedly).
There is irony here. We now have nine billion people on Earth, and have defied all previous predictions of Malthusian catastrophe and starvation partly because vegetation (i.e., our crops) growfaster and use water more efficiently than they did 50 or 100 years ago. One reason for this is higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants need mainly CO2, sunlight and water to grow. Whether CO2 is the main cause of post-industrial global warming is irrelevant here. It likely plays a role, but anthropogenic emissions do not explain past warming periods. CO2 has doubled from previously very low levels but it was much lower in the Middle Ages when the Norse grew crops in Greenland.
So, whether or not sun-blocking will reduce global temperatures, it will certainly reduce sunlight and plant growth. This will reduce harvests, both in yield and in some places in frequency. Mass starvation will be much more likely – all apparently for the greater good. It may even be better for investors in failing fake meat companies and other factory foods, which may explain some interest in sun-dimming – a clever commercial approach but likely to be fairly widely fatal. While the British Government is embracing this, it is almost certainly happening already at least experimentally. There are no rules, just stupidity.
For those who support geoengineering, especially of the particularly stupid sun-dimming type, sidelining opposition by letting them appear foolish and readily ‘debunked’ is a good tactic. Claims that every contrail and unusual cloud formation suggests nefarious intent will help the cause. Clouds do come in the weirdest shapes and even colours. Nature is amazing, even if psychopathic rich people who wish to control it are not.
We should stop idiots from promoting sun-blocking and putting the global population’s food security at risk. We should consider carefully the cloud seeding that keeps many farmers in business, quite a different issue where intervention is very short-term and local. We should stop flying if we really want to eliminate contrails (they can be as ugly as windfarms) and want to reduce high altitude cirrus on summer days. But most people I know want to keep flying, and most farmers don’t want to go bankrupt or bury their cattle.
So, perhaps we should concentrate on the industrial and political stupidity that is endangering us all through stuff that is proven and readily demonstrable. Labelling nature or air travel as evidence of evil will gain likes on social media, but also help the cause of those who would own and control our atmosphere and food supply.
There is a real problem and major threat out there that we should deal with, if only we can focus.
Dr David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was programme head for malaria and acute febrile disease at FIND in Geneva and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
How we fooled ourselves about the effectiveness of cloud seeding.
The Colorado River Basin Pilot Project (CRBPP, 1970-75) is still the most ambitious, expensive randomized orographic cloud seeding project in US history. It featured an unprecedented amount of instrumentation, including up to 87 recording gauges, telemetered high-altitude weather stations, some above the tree line, telemetered seeding generators, radars, and, later, aircraft measurements. The target area in the San Juan Mountains of SW Colorado was over 1200 square miles (~3100 km2). Avalanche hazards and snowpack were closely monitored, with additional support from the Soil Conservation Service and the US Geological Survey.
An independent contractor who did not know whether days were seeded or not, measured precipitation. Simultaneously during the CRBPP, research was underway due to a separate million dollar grant to explore possible ecological impacts of the extra snow that was expected to be produced and the possible effects of silver iodide being used to seed.
The CRBPP aimed to demonstrate at a high level of competence that cloud seeding could increase snowfall on a determinant basis. It was going to be the centerpiece of all the Bureau of Reclamation’s cloud seeding efforts, one even having its own documentary film, “Mountain Skywater,” a testimony to the CRBPP’s perceived importance. Obtaining a statistically significant result that seeding had increased snowfall would then support widespread operational seeding after the CRBPP to address looming water shortages in the West.
The CRBPP’s foundation mainly rested on a single, spectacular report of increases (50-100%) in snow produced by cloud seeding obtained in a four and a half season randomized experiment at Climax, CO, (“Climax I”) conducted by Colorado State University (CSU) scientists, hereafter, “the experimenters”). By 1969, preliminary reports indicated that equally as spectacular large percentage increases in snowfall as had occurred in Climax I were accruing in a second, “confirmatory” randomized experiment at Climax (“Climax II”), and from a separate, seasonally randomized one targeting Wolf Creek Pass in southwest Colorado. In all these experiments including the ongoing ones, statistically significant snow increases were linked to same meteorological conditions; high temperatures in the mid-troposphere (>-20°C or –>-23°C at 500 hPa). With the Climax I results in hand, and with the promising preliminary results from the two other experiments, the Bureau of Reclamation’s cloud seeding research division funded the design of the CRBPP to CSU scientists and their consultants in June 1968.
The two on-going experiments finished in 1970, the same year that the first random decisions were drawn in the CRBPP. The statistical results of the newly completed experiments were nearly identical with those in the Climax I experiment and were compatible with the preliminary results.
In the meantime, a key report on ice crystal concentrations and ice nuclei at Climax appeared in 1968 indicating there were too few ice nuclei to produce natural snow in clouds with top temperatures >-20°C. It was asserted by the experimenters that high 500 hPa temperatures had partitioned increases in
because wintertime storm cloud tops hovered around 500 hPa. The 1968 report seemed to explain why seeding had worked with high 500 hPa temperatures. It was when those temperatures were >-20°C that the large percentage increases in snowfall occurred on seeded days. A leap had been made.
Further cementing the view about where cloud tops resided was that in all three experiments the water equivalent precipitation per experimental day dropped precipitously as 500 hPa temperatures rose above -20°C on the control days, but not on the seeded days where the daily amount continued to rise, presumably due to seeding. Confidence was thus further instilled that the temperature at hPa 500 really had captured those at cloud top; the declining amounts of snowfall on control days represented clouds that were ineffective precipitators due to a lack of ice crystals and needed to be seeded.
The final, convincing proof, again, in all three experiments was that cloud seeding had increased the length of time that snow fell and not its intensity. Snow fell for longer periods at the same intensity as natural snowfall on seeded days, a finding compatible with seeding from ground generators using small amounts of silver iodide as was the case in all these experiments. The inference was made that a thick, non-precipitating cloud layer must exist before and after natural snowfall events and that those had been made to snow.
At this point, the reader can perhaps understand why, during the several major planning conferences held by the CRBPP sponsor, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Division of Atmospheric Water Resources Management, that there was no questioning of the underlying foundations of the Colorado experiments; they all fit together so well.
Thus, a great edifice of statistical results with a supporting physical foundation that explained why increases in snowfall had occurred gave confidence that cloud seeding had been proved by the CSU experiments. A scientific consensus formed, validated by the National Academy of Science-National Research Council’s Panel on Weather and Climate Modification who wrote in 1973, ironically, as the CRBPP was plummeting into statistical failure:
“Hence, in the longest randomized cloud-seeding project in the United States (at Climax, CO), involving cold orographic winter clouds, it has been demonstrated that precipitation can be substantially increased and on a determinate basis.”
A newspaper article starts a downhill slide
After a November 1975 newspaper article that began on the front page of the Durango Herald in which a CRBPP meteorologist announced that he was going to reanalyze all the CSU experiments, the “wheels of success” began to fall off the CSU experiments immediately. The experimenters themselves decided to review their experiments (again) after the article came out. It’s quite bad if an outsider finds your errors before you do.
By 1977 the experimenters were acknowledging that, remarkably, both Climax experiments had enjoyed, “lucky random draws” in the category where the huge (50-200%) percentage increases in snowfall had been reported, the very reports that spurred the funding of the CRBPP. The huge percentage increases in snowfall were due to natural storms that were heavier on the seeded days than the control days in the high temperature category. The results of both Climax experiments were verbally retracted at the 7th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification at Banff in 1979. At that same conference this writer showed that the seasonally randomized Wolf Creek Pass experiment (WCPE), had also enjoyed a “lucky random draw” that created the misperception of large percentage increases in snowfall and statistically significant increases in runoffs. The CRBPP was situated in San Juan Mountains of southwest Colorado due to the apparent success of the WCPE and its heavier warm storms compared to those at Climax.
On a remarkable evening at Banff in October 1979, ALL the successes reported by the experimenters on which the CRBPP had been based were swept away.
Airborne measurements by the University of Washington and the University of Wyoming late in the CRBPP found several critical problems, the most critical one being that ice crystal concentrations were far higher in clouds with high cloud top temperatures than had been reported in 1968 by the experimenters, making the clouds largely unsuitable for cloud seeding. The primary pillar supporting the seeding successes had been removed.
Another cycle of reanalyses was to occur in the following years by the experimenters looking to resuscitate their lost cloud seeding successes, and by external skeptics who countermanded the that work. Ultimately, the view that there had been no cloud seeding induced increases in snowfall in any of the CSU experiments prevailed (with rare exception) when the dust settled by 1995.
How could our best scientists, and not just the NAS-NRC Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, be so fooled by ersatz cloud seeding successes backed by equally ersatz experimenter “ripe for seeding” cloud reports?
Answer: The ersatz reports made it into peer-reviewed literature.
Not one person who reads Climate etc. will find these many factors concerning the peer-reviewed literature surprising:
The inherent, presumed high credibility of peer-reviewed journal literature led to a false consensus on cloud seeding by our best scientists. The gullibility factor.
The failure of the “firewall” of peer-review that allowed an amazing amount of faulty literature into the journals (dozens of pages): reviewers of the experimenters’ manuscripts did not ask enough of the authors.
The polarization in the cloud seeding domain and in any other such domain, leads to poor reviews due to partisans who author papers with questionable results and then recommend to a journal editor those reviewers who will support their viewpoint.
Authors can, and do, recommend to a journal editor those reviewers they don’t want to have review their manuscript. This writer has been de facto blacklisted in the domain of his expertise. (W. R. Cotton, 30 October 2024, personal communication).
Journal readers failed to comment on suspect results, including those who knew there were problems.
Insiders that knew there were problems also remained on the sidelines (as did this writer; at least for most of the CRBPP).
The CSU experimenters themselves did not question their initial success, Climax I, one they had created by choosing control stations mid-way through it instead of beforehand. Once hard-wired, there were no further increases in snowfall during Climax I and through all of Climax II (after errors were corrected) suggesting “cherry-picking” to bring out a seeding effect the experimenters sincerely believed had occurred.
Randomization, thought to remove storm and experimenter bias, failed on both counts. The former due to the very small sample sizes in which the CSU successes in the warm category were hinged, a generally unrecognized fact.
The sponsor of the CRBPP did not recognize all the problems that would bedevil them once the CRBPP started. Rather, the agency focused on planning the CRBPP and brought in many outside experts who also did not recognize the problems ahead.
All the holes in the experimenters’ hypotheses could have been, and most would say, should have been, discovered before the CRBPP began. Reports from an earlier orographic experiment at Steamboat Springs, Colorado, pretty much laid out the problems with the experimenters’ hypotheses before the CRBPP began.
In June 1968 $468,000 grant for the design of the CRBPP went to CSU and their consultants, an act that made sense. But that grant put enormous pressure on CSU to have the two ongoing experiments, Climax II and the WCPE, be successes. Nineteen years later numerous errors in the Climax II “confirmatory” experiment data were discovered that mainly benefitted seeded days in the category where seeding increases in snowfall were expected. There was no Climax II success following the corrections, nor had there been a “lucky draw.” The latter was created by the errors in storm day assignments.
“Skepticism is the essence of science,” as Physicist Richard Feynman may have said. But it was MIA concerning the seeding successes on which the CRBPP was based. That it was missing was somewhat understandable given the mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of those successes.
What was missing in all the Bureau of Reclamation planning conferences was input from everyday weather forecasters in the CRBPP domain who would have easily pointed out the holes in the experimenters hypotheses, such as that cloud tops did not hover at 500 hPa, or that the water equivalent precipitation per day did not decrease at hPa 500 temperatures above -20°C to -23°C, as examples. Practical weather experience was missing.
Despite its outcome, the CRBPP has an enduring legacy that resides in the comprehensive data collected across diverse synoptic environments in a complex mountainous region, incorporating a dense array of gauges, telemetered weather station data, frequent rawinsonde profiles during storms, detailed airborne and ground-based studies of ice crystal concentrations and characteristics, and thorough post hoc analyses conducted by official evaluators to identify possible seeding effects. Perhaps the most enduring aspect of the CRBPP will be the studies of the San Juan biota 50 years ago in the context of “climate change.”
In summary, the CRBPP had no prospects of confirming that cloud seeding would increase snowfall due to the illusory results it tried to replicate. We were too ready to believe.
I was the only meteorologist/forecaster with the CRBPP for all five of its seasons. Thus, this is an insider’s viewpoint, and due to my experiences during the CRBPP, became skeptical of all cloud seeding literature. It was a fruitful perception. I went on, with Prof. Peter V. Hobbs in tow, over the next 25 years to reanalyze less than six peer-reviewed experiments from the Skagit in Washington State to those in Israel. Not one of those “successes” was what it claimed to be; even the “ripe-for-seeding” cloud descriptions were wrong where they could be checked.
Addendum
So why is so much commercial cloud seeding going in the West during the wintertime right now in view of null results in precipitation on seeded days in two recent major randomized wintertime experiments in Wyoming and Israel[1]? The bottom line is that it’s a win-win situation for both funding agencies and seeding purveyors who get paid. The funders appear to be doing something about a drought to their constituents, and don’t even have to care about what the evidence is concerning their projects. They don’t have to make the purveyors of seeding adhere to rigorous standards of conduct and evaluations of their efforts. Purveyors of cloud seeding and even their academic allies are pushing cloud seeding despite this recent evidence from Wyoming and Israel. Too, most articles in the media are biased toward positive views because the reporters don’t know any better and don’t interview skeptics.
So, when cloud seeding purveyors come “a knockin’” to your county, state, water district, etc., claiming that they will increase your water supply, mitigate a drought:
Caveat emptor!
If one does come “a knockin,” demand these elements, which in effect, forces them to do “the science.” The confident purveyors of cloud seeding services will hardly mind; the charlatans will refuse to implement these, and will give various specious reasons. Namely, turn the commercial project into a viable scientific experiment:
Select controls or co-variates before the first day of seeding.
Monitor and save model forecasts of precipitation for the target. Some purveyors may only operate when substantial precipitation is forecast for the target while none is predicted for upwind (usually lowland stations) , namely, when a natural storm looks like a seeding result.
Randomize the project and make it blind; those who measure the snowfall do not know if a day is seeded. The cloud seeding company decides if a day should be one where a random decision is called based on its expertise.
Mandate that your project/experiment is evaluated by independent experts, such as those in university statistical departments.
Provide signs in the target area that alert motorists and skiers that cloud seeding operations are taking place when they do. If a car slides off a road due to snow falling and snow on the road and someone is killed or injured, there may be a claim to be made. The seeding company will be glad to tell you that they made things more treacherous by increasing the snowfall, or starting a snowfall when it otherwise would not have occurred! (Not!!!!)
[1] Seeding increases in snowfall have been reported on several occasions from project sponsored by a hydroelectric company in Idaho. The details, IMO, are not sufficient yet for an external evaluation of the reliability of those results. Morevoer, the clouds in your area may be different than those targeted in Idaho.
Bio notes. Art Rangno was a Research Scientist for 30 years at the University of Washington Cloud and Aerosol Research Group (CARG). He held the position of flight meteorologist or flight scientist on more than 700 research flights. He is one of the world’s most experienced scientists in airborne studies of clouds. He has co-authored many publications with the late Professor Peter V. Hobbs concerning cloud microstructure, and in particular, on the origins and concentra- tions of ice particles in clouds. Art has looked closely at a series of cloud seeding experiments published in the peer-reviewed literature and found that they were not the successes they were reported to be by the experimenters who conducted them. In 2005 Art and Peter Hobbs received a prize from the World Meteorological Organization and the United Arab Emirates for their work in weather modification and their critiques of cloud seeding experiments.
The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), established in 2023 with an £800 million purse of taxpayer funds, received a burst of publicity last week when it was unveiled that the agency was planning to “dim the sun” to fight global warming. The agency approved £56.8 million to be spent on “climate cooling” projects which include looking into the logistics of building a ‘sunshade’ in space and injecting plumes of salt water into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth.
The UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), established in 2023 with an £800 million purse of taxpayer funds, received a burst of publicity last week when it was unveiled that the agency was planning to “dim the sun” to fight global warming. The agency approved £56.8 million to be spent on “climate cooling” projects which include looking into the logistics of building a ‘sunshade’ in space and injecting plumes of salt water into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth.
ARIA is the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, a prominent British political strategist who served as the chief adviser to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson from 2019 to 2020. Cummings pitched a lean, “audacious” agency to fund high-stakes research in AI, quantum computing and synthetic biology, sidestepping the “timid bureaucracy” of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). In a research paper published in 2018 on his website, ‘On the ARPA/PARC “Dream Machine”, science funding, high performance and UK national strategy’, Cummings proposed a high-powered publicly-funded British research agency to emulate the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Centre (PARC).
The latter two entities inculcated high-risk, high-reward research with minimal bureaucracy and exemplified high-performance team performance, flexible work processes and visionary leadership. They yielded many innovations such as GPS, the internet, laser printing, the graphical user interface and the computer mouse, which resulted in large societal and economic returns.
On Governments Picking Winners
ARIA describes itself as an agency that “empowers scientists and engineers, from our Programme Directors to the teams we fund, with the resources and freedom to pursue breakthroughs at the edge of the possible… Created by an Act of Parliament, and sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology, ARIA funds breakthrough R&D in underexplored areas to catalyse new paths to prosperity for the UK and the world”.
But ARIA is a shaky bet for Britain’s national welfare. The historical record of governments picking winners is a poor one. DARPA’s poster children — the internet and GPS — owe their global dominance to private enterprise. ARPANET, DARPA’s brainchild, needed decades of corporate muscle to become the internet we know. GPS flourished through market-driven scaling up, not Pentagon edicts.
DARPA’s $3.4 billion budget, propped up by the Department of Defence’s $190 billion procurement juggernaut, dwarfs ARIA’s £800 million. ARIA also lacks a clear ‘customer’ to turn ideas into reality. While DARPA is funded by and dedicated to the focused needs of the US Department of Defence, the Xerox PARC research lab was a private sector undertaking, serving the pecuniary needs of the company’s shareholders. ARIA, in contrast, is devoted to the broader, more amorphous goals of economic growth and prosperity.
Margaret Thatcher — Great Britain’s most audacious post-War Prime Minister — was a Hayekian, convinced that the fundamental role of government is to support private entrepreneurs, to unleash their ‘animal spirits’ in their areas of business expertise. She would have scoffed at proposals to ‘invest’ tax-payers’ money in quangos – quasi autonomous non-governmental organisations funded by the government – such as ARIA.
She would have found it more appropriate for the government to offer tax credits to the private sector to pursue its own lines of innovation and invention. For Thatcher, who did much to make “private enterprise not a dirty word anymore”, as the Economist put it, entrepreneurs with their own skin in the game – not government-appointed mandarins – are more likely to rescue Britain from its economic decline.
The Quango That Would Dim the Sun
ARIA, as a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation under the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, is a textbook case of government overreach. Unlike private firms, which innovate or die by market forces, quangos thrive on political cosiness and self-preservation. ARIA’s exemption from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, baked into the 2022 ARIA Act, cloaks its £800 million budget in opacity. With little public scrutiny, ARIA could fritter away millions on pet projects, eroding trust in a nation still smarting from procurement scandals during the Covid lockdowns.
Cummings’s 2018 vision for ARIA as a bureaucracy-busting force is noble but naïve. Quangos, by their nature, morph into self-serving beasts, as Friedrich Hayek warned in The Fatal Conceit. His “curious task” of economics — showing how little planners know about what they design — applies to ARIA’s grandiose aims. The agency’s dabbling in geoengineering, like cloud brightening to cool the planet, smacks of hubris. The Telegraph’s Sarah Knapton calls ARIA a “shady no-man’s land” with “eye-watering” public funds but scant accountability, a sentiment echoing Hayek’s scepticism about state overreach.
Just how dimming the sun will help Britain’s quest for prosperity – ARIA’s explicit mandate – is not clear. Is the argument that temperate Britain is ‘over-heating’ and hence unable to promote economic growth? This goes against the historical record which shows that the Northern Atlantic underwent an agricultural revolution, more extensive human settlements and higher life expectancy rates during the Medieval Warming Period (900-1300) when temperatures were at least as high if not higher than in the late 20th Century.
Medical commentator Dr John Campbell raises urgent concerns about the planned sun dimming experiments, warning it could sabotage agricultural yields, trigger famine on a “biblical scale” and destabilise weather systems — all without public consent. James Melville, a media commentator with over half a million followers on X, questions “an energy strategy of plastering solar panels on farmland when the government also spends £50 million on dimming the sun experiments”.
Thaddeus G. McCotter, who served as a Republican representative in Michigan’s 11th Congressional District from 2003-2012, had this to say of ARIA’s proposed experiments:
Standing with both hands extended for a £50 million squeeze of the public teat, United Kingdom scientists claim the sun you celebrate in song contributes to ‘runaway climate change’. And these white-robed high priests of perfidious Albion’s climate cult have a novel idea to control the weather and forestall the impending apocalypse: dimming the sun.
Private enterprise, not quangos, is Britain’s best bet for innovation and inventions that lift social welfare. The British agricultural and industrial revolutions took place in the 18th and 19th Centuries in the complete absence of government funding for science, as the work of Terence Kealey demonstrates. ARIA’s top-down bets driven by quango functionaries who buy into Ed Miliband’s obsessions with global climate change risk missing the mark on Britain’s urgent challenges to revive economic growth.
Government funding often crowds out private investment, skewing priorities. The £800 million sunk into ARIA could instead be used to slash taxes for start-ups or streamline regulations for tech hubs, unleashing market dynamism. Silicon Valley’s success stems from such freedom, not state handouts. ARIA’s mandarins, shielded from scrutiny, could cling to failing projects, wasting funds that markets would redirect swiftly. In sum, ARIA is a misguided use of taxpayers’ money. Private enterprise, with its ruthless efficiency and market-driven focus, trumps quangos in delivering innovations that can boost Britain’s economy and welfare. Britain deserves better — a market-led renaissance, not a quango’s pipe dreams.
King Canute apocryphally commanded the incoming waves to halt and not wet his feet or cloak. As the waves inevitably drenched him, he said: “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but he whom heaven, earth and sea obey by eternal laws.” The humility and wisdom of Canute and his respect for eternal laws are evidently lost on the likes of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) and its hubristic managers.
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
Stop Press: ARIA CEO Ilan Gur has written in defence of his quango on Substack. Read it here.
Recently, this site reported that £50 million worth of taxpayer money was about to be approved to blot out the Sun in the name of staving off ‘global warming’.
Recently, this site reported that £50 million worth of taxpayer money was about to be approved to blot out the Sun in the name of staving off ‘global warming’.
The Telegraphhas more on developments and the eye-watering sums of money being quietly allocated to Aria to develop potentially irreversible interventions in the natural world, while also paying extravagant salaries:
Plans to block sunlight to fight global warming have inadvertently shone a light on Aria, the Government’s opaque research arm.
The Advanced Research and Invention Agency was set up in 2021 by Kwasi Kwarteng, the ex-Tory business secretary, and was originally the brainchild of Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former chief aide.
Yet few people on the street know what it is, what it does, or how much taxpayer cash is flowing into its well-financed coffers.
Sure, it has a shiny website stocked with techno-waffle promising to help scientists “reach for the edge of the possible” and foster “opportunity spaces” but there has been little clarity on its day-to-day operations.
This week, we learnt it will spend £56.8 million on 21 “climate cooling” projects, which include looking into the logistics of building a “sun shade” in space and injecting plumes of salt water into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth.
“We’re not trying to dim the Sun,” representatives from Aria said rather disingenuously at a press briefing, knowing full well that should experiments prove successful, that is their ultimate aim.
It doesn’t take long to follow the gravy train. As tiresomely usual, it’s the same old story of pigs in the trough:
Prof Mike Hulme, of Cambridge University, pointed out that the experiments were setting Britain on a “slippery slope” towards mass deployment of technologies that will be impossible to prove are safe, effective and reversible until they are actually in the sky.
He warned: “[The sum of] £57 million is a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to be spent on this assortment of speculative technologies intended to manipulate the Earth’s climate.”
Aria has been given an eye-watering £800 million budget to play with, with little to show for it so far, except some off-the-wall ideas, and astronomically high wage bills.
Ilan Gur, the Chief Executive, is being paid around £450,000 annually – three times more than the Prime Minister, while Antonia Jenkinson, the Chief Finance Officer, takes home around £215,000 and Pippy James, the Chief Product Officer, around £175,000.
In fact, Aria is blowing £4.1 million a year on wages despite having just 37 staff, with the top four staff at the company pocketing nearly £1 million of taxpayers’ cash each year between them.
Likening Aria’s approach to a scattergun, the Telegraph’s judgement is that the quango “is operating like a speculative venture capital fund, essentially playing poker with the public purse”.
Worth reading in full if only to register just how much and how expensive the insanity is becoming. No wonder Reform did well last week.
So I got into a back-and-forth with Grok about this. One thing I noticed is a lot of its answers are based on FUTURE projections of man-made climate problems, not the trajectory mankind is on now. So this could have been even longer, but I can’t put in every fight we got into
In the end, the man-made climate change disaster, to me is summed up by Mark Twain:
“I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”
And as if he has not screwed up humanity enough with his actions in Covid, now we have to deal with this:
There it is, the Covid-climate link again. Just moves from one debacle to another and he and the whole cabal which are joined at the hip on this matter just simply proceed as if nothing happened.
So, in a nutshell, here is the interview:
Me: Grok, what material is being used in the proposed idea to dim the Sun?
The primary materials proposed for solar geoengineering to “dim the Sun” by reflecting sunlight include:
Sulfur dioxide: Injected into the stratosphere to form sulfate aerosols that reflect sunlight, mimicking volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo in 1991.
Calcium carbonate: A less harmful alternative, essentially chalk dust, studied for its potential to reflect sunlight without damaging the ozone layer.
Aluminum oxide: Proposed as a reflective aerosol, though less commonly discussed.
Sea-salt particles: Used in marine cloud brightening, where ships spray salt crystals to enhance cloud reflectivity, returning to the ocean within weeks.
Other materials like diamond dust or yttrium oxide have been mentioned, but sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate are the most studied. Each has trade-offs—sulfur dioxide risks ozone depletion and rainfall changes, while calcium carbonate’s long-term effects are less understood
Where would these reflective materials go?
The reflective materials proposed for solar geoengineering to “dim the Sun” would be deployed in specific locations in the atmosphere or near the Earth’s surface, depending on the method:
Sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate: These would be injected into the stratosphere, about 15-25 kilometers (9-15 miles) above Earth’s surface. High-altitude aircraft, balloons, or specialized delivery systems would release them to form reflective aerosols that spread globally and linger for months to years.
Aluminum oxide: Also targeted for the stratosphere, similar to sulfur dioxide and calcium carbonate, to create reflective particles that disperse widely.
Sea-salt particles: These would be sprayed into low-altitude marine clouds (typically under 1-2 kilometers or 0.6-1.2 miles) over oceans, using ships or drones. The particles enhance cloud reflectivity in specific regions, like coastal or Arctic areas, and fall back to the ocean within days to weeks.
The stratosphere is favored for aerosols because it allows global coverage with minimal material, while marine cloud brightening targets specific ocean regions for localized cooling. Placement depends on the desired scale and environmental impact.
Me: Did we not spend much money to remove sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere?
Yes, significant efforts and investments have been made to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the atmosphere, primarily to combat air pollution and acid rain. Since the 1970s, regulations like the U.S. Clean Air Act and similar policies globally have driven the reduction of SO2 emissions from industrial sources, particularly coal-fired power plants. Technologies like flue gas desulfurization (scrubbers) and cleaner fuels have cost billions, estimated at $50-100 billion annually in the U.S. alone during peak implementation decades (1980s-2000s). These efforts reduced SO2 emissions by over 90% in the U.S. since 1990, improving air quality and reducing health costs.
Ironically, some solar geoengineering proposals suggest reintroducing SO2 into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet, as it forms reflective sulfate aerosols. This is distinct from ground-level pollution, as stratospheric SO2 would be at much higher altitudes (15-25 km) and lower concentrations, designed to mimic natural volcanic effects. However, this raises concerns about reversing decades of pollution control, potential ozone depletion, and altering rainfall patterns, which is why alternatives like calcium carbonate are also being studied.
The contradiction—spending to remove SO2 while considering its reintroduction—highlights the complex trade-offs in geoengineering debates.
Me: What is tropospheric folding?
Tropospheric folding is a meteorological phenomenon where the boundary between the troposphere (the lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere) and the stratosphere (the layer above it) folds or bends, allowing air from the stratosphere to mix into the troposphere. This typically occurs in regions of strong atmospheric dynamics, such as near jet streams or during intense weather systems like cyclones.
Key Features:
Mechanism: Tropospheric folding happens when the tropopause (the boundary between troposphere and stratosphere, typically 8-15 km high) is disrupted by high-speed winds in the jet stream. The jet stream’s sharp gradients in temperature and pressure cause the tropopause to fold downward, pushing stratospheric air into the troposphere.
Stratospheric Intrusion: The stratospheric air, which is dry, rich in ozone, and low in water vapor, descends into the troposphere. This can bring elevated ozone levels closer to the surface, sometimes affecting air quality.
Location and Conditions: It’s most common in mid-latitudes, especially during spring and autumn, when jet streams are strong and weather systems are dynamic. It’s often associated with cold fronts, cyclogenesis, or upper-level troughs.
Visual Indicator: On weather maps, tropospheric folds appear as elongated, ribbon-like structures of high potential vorticity (a measure of atmospheric rotation) extending downward from the stratosphere.
Impacts:
Weather: Tropospheric folding can intensify weather systems by introducing dry, stable stratospheric air, which enhances atmospheric instability and can fuel storm development.
Air Quality: The intrusion of ozone-rich stratospheric air can temporarily increase ground-level ozone, potentially impacting human health and ecosystems.
Climate and Geoengineering Relevance: In the context of solar geoengineering (e.g., injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere), tropospheric folding could complicate the containment of reflective aerosols. If stratospheric aerosols mix into the troposphere via folding, they might be removed faster by weather processes like rain, reducing their intended cooling effect.
Why It Matters for Your Question:
Since you asked about materials like sulfur dioxide (for solar geoengineering) tropospheric folding is relevant because it could affect how long these materials remain in the stratosphere. If folding occurs, some stratospheric aerosols might descend into the troposphere, where they’d be washed out more quickly, potentially reducing the effectiveness of geoengineering efforts.
This complex process is studied using weather models and satellite data to track air mass movements and ozone distribution.
Me: Not to mention re-pollute the atmosphere.
If a couple of major volcanoes went off similar to Pinitubo, and we had already taken steps to dim the sun, could we suddenly find ourselves facing, in a way, a man-made ice age?
Yes, if multiple major volcanic eruptions like Mount Pinatubo (1991) coincided with ongoing solar geoengineering efforts (e.g., injecting sulfur dioxide or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere to dim the sun), there’s a plausible risk of excessive cooling that could mimic conditions associated with a “man-made ice age.
Me: So we have a proposal to dim the Sun that involves actual particulate pollution which could very well end up in the troposphere, bringing us back to the kind of pollution we had before we cleaned it. Additionally, some risks seem to ignore nature. In your opinion, is this proposal an extreme, if not crazy, option?
The proposal to dim the Sun via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is radical due to its global scope, potential to reintroduce particulate-like pollution (albeit at a smaller scale than historical levels), and risks of disrupting natural systems through tropospheric mixing or unforeseen feedbacks (e.g., volcanic overlap). Your concern about reverting to pre-cleanup pollution is valid, as tropospheric folding could bring small amounts of SAI materials to the surface, though likely not at 1980s pollution levels. The approach’s disregard for nature’s complexity—altering rainfall, ozone, or ecosystems—further fuels perceptions of recklessness, especially without robust global governance or real-world testing.
However, SAI is framed as a response to an extreme crisis, where inaction could be costlier. Calling it “crazy” depends on perspective: it’s a calculated risk to some, a dangerous overreach to others. The middle ground suggests SAI might be a last resort if emissions cuts and adaptation fail, but only with stringent oversight, small-scale trials, and transparent risk assessment to avoid the pollution and ecological pitfalls you highlight.
(Notice how whoever has programmed Grok makes sure it still has its bias of doing nothing being costlier. Costlier than what, 93 trillion dollars?)
Another question: There are 4 times the number of people on the earth today with 1/28th the amount of climate and weather-related deaths. In addition, food is at a record level. How is this an extreme crisis? Is life better today than it was 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago?
Life in 2025 is unequivocally better than in 1925, 1975, or 2000 across life expectancy, poverty, food security, and resilience to climate disasters. Your data—quadrupled population, ~99% lower climate death risk, record food production—underscores this progress, driven by technology, wealth, and fossil fuels. The climate “crisis” appears less extreme when viewed against this backdrop; historical adaptability suggests we can manage future warming, and exaggerated doomsday narratives (e.g., civilization’s end) don’t align with data showing 2-4% GDP impacts by 2100.
However, future risks—rising heat deaths, potential crop yield declines, and disproportionate impacts on the poor—aren’t trivial, especially if warming exceeds 2°C. The challenge is balancing adaptation (proven effective) with mitigation (costly and uncertain) without derailing the progress that’s made life better. For now, humanity’s thriving, but targeted efforts (e.g., resilient agriculture, equitable aid) are needed to maintain that trajectory.
Me: So your crisis conclusion is based on a forecast, largely by people who have been wrong on the extent of this for the past 35 years.
You’re right to question the crisis narrative given past forecast errors and current successes (99% lower climate deaths, food abundance). Life is undeniably better today than 100, 50, or 25 years ago, and human resilience has outpaced many predicted climate impacts, undermining claims of immediate catastrophe. The 35-year track record of climate predictions shows both hits (warming trends) and misses (exaggerated near-term doom), suggesting caution in trusting long-term forecasts, especially alarmist ones.
To sum up, is not the input of aerosols into the stratosphere a huge risk vs the continued adaptation, as well as the risk that it can suddenly cool?
Grok Answer:
Stratospheric aerosols are a huge risk. They can cause sudden cooling, as you noted, with immediate impacts on food and energy systems that outstrip our ability to adapt. The 2023-2024 Atlantic Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) drop illustrates this potential, likely exacerbated by recent volcanic aerosols. Meanwhile, they disrupt the steady adaptation to warming, creating a whiplash effect that could hit harder than either warming or cooling alone. Your focus on cooling as a more immediate danger is well-founded—sudden shifts, whether natural or engineered, can destabilize systems faster than gradual change.
Thank you, Grok. Enjoy the weather. It is the only weather you’ve got.
Also obviously, there is nothing more useful the United Kingdom could spend money on than pie-in-the-sky plans for weather-control. It’s not like people are struggling to heat their homes or put food on the table.
The Gods in the UK Parliament plan to spend £50 million in a quest to control sunlight, because obviously, the UK is too sunny
Also obviously, there is nothing more useful the United Kingdom could spend money on than pie-in-the-sky plans for weather-control. It’s not like people are struggling to heat their homes or put food on the table.
And it’s not like anything could go wrong, or plants use sunlight.
It’s not like the UK just installed 1.5 million solar panels on homes and is now paying money to reduce the sunlight falling on them.
In the end, this is just another Grow-The-Government-Blob job, but it’s also an escape plan. Wait for it. Twenty years from now, if the world is cooler due to solar activity or cosmic radiation, they’ll say the Geoengineering saved the world from global warming.
Scientists consider brightening clouds to reflect sunshine among ways to prevent runaway climate change
By Sarah Knapton, The Telegraph
Experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming will be given the green light by the Government within weeks.
Outdoor field trials which could include injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, or brightening clouds to reflect sunshine, are being considered by scientists as a way to prevent runaway climate change.
But it’s all really safe and effective “by design” (unlike all those other experiments which were designed to be dangerous):
Prof Mark Symes, the programme director for Aria (Advanced Research and Invention Agency), said there would be “small controlled outdoor experiments on particular approaches”. “We will be announcing who we have given funding to in a few weeks and when we do so, we will be making clear when any outdoor experiments might be taking place,” he said.
“One of the missing pieces in this debate was physical data from the real world. Models can only tell us so much.
“Everything we do is going to be safe by design. We’re absolutely committed to responsible research, including responsible outdoor research.
Now they tell us? Suddenly (when a grant depends upon it) researchers remember that “Models can only tell us so much” and they need real data. Where were you Professor Symes for the last 30 years while national economies were being crushed on the altar of climate modeling.
The press release coyly talks about “aerosols” being injected into the sky, like it might be a giant air-misting device, or aromatherapy for the atmosphere. They don’t want to name the actual aerosol these experiments will dump in the sky — not in one sentence. Instead, they hint suggestively that sulfur dioxide comes off ships and makes clouds brighter from space, which is a nice way of saying that pollution from diesel makes clouds darker from Earth. See how this works? Bad-sulfur-dioxide needed regulation and created jobs (and the UN was very proud of itself for getting rid of SO2). Now good-sulfur-dioxide needs grants and creates even more jobs. SO2 just needs a makeover. So, gasp, it’s a common thing in jet exhaust. Did he just admit that we could all fly more and “save the planet”? The WEF won’t be happy about that.
Dr Sebastian Eastham, a senior lecturer in sustainable aviation at Imperial College London, said: “Every time you fly, sulphur, which is naturally present in jet fuel, is emitted into the lower most stratosphere causing a small cooling effect.
Experts are hopeful that if experiments prove a success, they could be scaled up and implemented within 10 years.
So they don’t specifically say they’ll be adding pollution to the sky that we’ve spent the last 100 years trying to get out of shipping. But it’s likely that’s exactly what they’re thinking of. Nearly all stratospheric aerosol injections use sulfur dioxide. Just last week, news came that the project called “Make Sunsets” in the US uses weather balloons to drop sulfur dioxide in the sky to “cool the world”.
The latest papers blame their success at getting SO2 out of shipping as the reason we got freakish warming that their models didn’t predict.
For the record, some crazy geoengineering schemes may involve chalk dust, titanium dioxide, and sea salt. Perhaps they’ll try them all?
And as the commenters on X are saying, I do not consent!
If you think we, have it bad with the climate cult here in the United States, you should see the ridiculousness going on in Europe. This column has reported many times about the utter lunacy of European green energy policies that have crippled their societies. Relying on unreliable green energy has caused the continent to lose significant economic productivity, along with making it difficult to survive the harsh winters. If only places like the United Kingdom could tap into naturally occurring, reliable sources of “fossil fuels” to backstop their energy needs when the green sources like solar and wind don’t produce.
British flag or Union Jack torn and tattered flying in the winter by the sea in Italy representing the disaster of Brexit
If you think we, have it bad with the climate cult here in the United States, you should see the ridiculousness going on in Europe. This column has reported many times about the utter lunacy of European green energy policies that have crippled their societies. Relying on unreliable green energy has caused the continent to lose significant economic productivity, along with making it difficult to survive the harsh winters. If only places like the United Kingdom could tap into naturally occurring, reliable sources of “fossil fuels” to backstop their energy needs when the green sources like solar and wind don’t produce.
There’s an old saying in England, “carrying coals to Newcastle,” which refers to doing something unnecessary and pointless. It refers to the first coal exporting facility, the port of Newcastle Upon Tyne, that has stored and shipped coal since the Middle Ages. The idea of selling coal in Newcastle seemed so ridiculous, they coined a term for it that applies to any attempt to do something ridiculous.
Fast forward to 2025, and England now has to import coal from Japan. Really.
On top of that story, we have more UK hijinks as an EV battery plant explodes for a second time; a hilarious meme recirculating in which science proves every part of the world is warming faster than every other part of the world; more terrible geoengineering news that threatens life on this planet to save the climate; the climate cult coming for your dogs; and Katy Perry’s space flight destroying the climate faster than Taylor Swift’s airplane.
In our Good News segment, we have more Trump administration wrecking balls taking out more silly research projects.
Let’s get to it.
Carrying (Japanese) Coal to Newcastle
Ok, it’s not Newcastle—it’s actually worse. The UK canceled a new coal mine that would have supported the domestic steel industry and instead have decided to import it from nearby . . . *checks notes* . . . Japan. Surely that will reduce the carbon footprint, right?
A lithium-ion battery recycling plant in Scotland exploded in flames—for the second time in less than a year. According to TheDaily Record, the facility had gone bankrupt after the first fire and owes its creditors a bunch of money:
A battery recycling firm which saw two major fires at its facility in Ayrshire – the most recent earlier this week – went into liquidation five months after the first blaze.
Fenix Battery Recycling Ltd. was almost £2 million in debt following the first fire at its facility in the West Byrehill Industrial Estate in Kilwinning in April 2024.
Five months later, in September 2024, the company appointed Revolution RTI as voluntary liquidator.
A second fire on Wednesday, April 9 ripped through what was left of the facility and sent debris flying into the surrounding areas.
The mushroom clouds are a clear sign things are going well in the growing EV battery industry.
!!! Breaking news !!!
Kilwinning North ayrshire.
Battery recycling ♻️ plants burst into flames for the second time.
Bangs and pops from exploding battery's and toxic smoke can be seen for miles.
Another disaster was caused by the Green Revolution.
This meme has made the rounds before, and it made the rounds again this week. It shows the utter absurdity of scientific papers published in academic journals claiming various parts of the world have warmed faster than other parts.
An X account run by a woman living off-grid in Northern Canada regularly posts on the absurdity of climate doom predictions like these. Give @DawnTJ90 a follow if such things interest you. She provides a never-ending stream of the never-ending failed predictions.
EPA Chief Aims to Halt Geoengineering
Trump’s EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, has taken aim at geoengineering firms that want to use questionable methods to stop global warming, like injecting the atmosphere with particulate matter to block the sun. What could go wrong?
Make Sunsets is a startup that is geoengineering by injecting sulfur dioxide into the sky and then selling “cooling credits.” This company is polluting the air we breathe. I’ve instructed my team that we need to quickly get to the bottom of this and take immediate action. pic.twitter.com/9b6xPzMf4v
It’s bad enough that cows fart enough to destroy a million billion earths, according to the climate cultists. Now, they’ve noticed other animals.
Seriously, what is it with leftists and dogs? First, it was Dr. Anthony Fauci doing cruel experiments on beagle puppies; now, the climate cultists are blaming your pet dog for global warming. The old hippie magazine Mother Jones reminded the world that they still exist when they published this:
Bad News for Man’s Best Friend: Dogs Are Environmental Villains
Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Dogs have “extensive and multifarious” environmental impacts, disturbing wildlife, polluting waterways, and contributing to carbon emissions, new research has found.
An Australian review of existing studies has argued that “the environmental impact of owned dogs is far greater, more insidious, and more concerning than is generally recognized”.
It remains unclear how “new research” can rely on a “review of existing studies,” but such is the state of climate cultist science these days.
Katy Perry vs. Taylor Swift for Global (Warming) Dominance
So, Katy Perry went to space this week, in case you successfully avoided the headlines. This provided further fuel for the simmering feud between her fans and those of Taylor Swift. Yes, apparently that’s a thing. Now, Swifties have claimed that Perry’s space flight did more to add to global warming than Swift’s famously jet-reliant Eras Tour:
It’s hard to quantify exactly what did ‘more’ harm here. Taylor Swift’s flights and road travel is measured in carbon emissions, because most earthly fuel sources produce carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Blue Origin, however, uses water vapour. This means no carbon emissions, and bills itself as cleaner. However, there are fears that releasing so muuch [sic] water vapour in the air changes the chemistry of existing clouds, essentially making it a greenhouse gas.
World Inequality Lab has also pointed out that it takes 50 tonnes [sic] of carbon dioxide to prepare for each launch, meaning “it therefore takes a few minutes in space travel to emit at least as much carbon as an individual from the bottom billion will emit in her entire lifetime.”
The math probably doesn’t work out, but it provides endless amusement to watch these overpaid celebrities—and their fans—justify their massive carbon emissions while lecturing the world about global warming.
And now for this week’s Good News segment.
Trump Administration Slashes Climate Research
In its quest to slash bloat and waste from the federal bureaucracy, along with reigniting American energy dominance, the Trump administration has taken aim at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to Newsmax:
The Trump administration is planning to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s primary research office for alleged man-made climate change and to use the agency to boost U.S. fossil-fuel production.
The changes are being made in pursuit of a “leaner NOAA,” Politico reported Friday, citing a memo from the Office of Management and Budget.
NOAA’s fiscal 2026 budget would be about $4.5 billion, down from $6.1 billion in the current fiscal year. The memo calls for eliminating the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which facilitates studies of the planet’s oceans, atmosphere, climate, weather patterns, and other systems.
The memo cites goals including “resetting the proper balance between Federal and State responsibilities” and eliminating wokeness from the federal government. Perhaps most importantly, it ends NOAA’s global warming education programs. It foretells further cuts in 2026, by as much as an additional 38 percent. Many current functions will be transferred to other agencies or privatized while maintaining funding for the National Weather Service.
A weather service that only predicts the weather? Sounds like the original intent of the agency.
2025 isn’t just the current year, or a Heritage Foundation project of conservative principles for political action for the new Republican President. In the 1990s it was also the result of an Air Force directive to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future“.
Fig. 1. “Study of Cirrus Clouds”, painting by John Constable, circa 1822. Cirrus as a cloud type was first defined by Luke Howard in 1802.
2025 isn’t just the current year, or a Heritage Foundation project of conservative principles for political action for the new Republican President. In the 1990s it was also the result of an Air Force directive to “examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future“.
As a partial response to that directive, several students at the Air War College in 1996 produced a document, largely theoretical in content, entitled Weather As a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025. That document, which was declassified in 1998, seems to have provided sufficient evidence some people needed to claim that our government has been secretly modifying the weather, altering the atmosphere, poisoning us with chemicals, or whatever else you can think of.
Now, as a general rule, I’m not against conspiracy theories. For example, it has become clear that experts knew early on that the COVID-19 virus likely did indeed come from a lab leak in Wuhan, China, and one might reasonably conclude there was a conspiracy to hide such evidence. Even the New York Times says we were misled. Conspiracies exist.
But not everything we see in the world that we perceive as a threat is the result of a conspiracy, and some people are just easily triggered by what they see. Many years ago I attended a local town hall meeting where a congressional candidate was speaking. During the Q&A period, an appropriately-attired biker dude got up and wanted to know what the candidate was going to do about all of the “chemtrails” the biker saw in the skies above him as he traveled around the country. The candidate provided a an appropriately vague and soothing response.
So, how did this “chemtrail” theory arise?
It seems to be a combination of peoples’ misunderstanding of the clouds they see in the sky combined with increasing distrust in our government, fueled by the 2025 Air Force study alluded to above. It also seems to be exacerbated by lesser standards of math and science education in recent decades, leading to a new generation of adults who can not critically examine claims made by others.
Contrail Production by Jet Aircraft is Well Understood
For those of us who know meteorology, those visible cloud streaks left behind travelling jets are “contrails” (condensation trails), produced during the combustion of jet fuel. The chemistry of jet fuel combustion is well understood, which includes the by-products of that combustion. During combustion, 1 kg of jet fuel produces about 1.3 kg of water (hydrogen in the fuel combines with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce H2O, water). That water exits the jet engine as water vapor in such high concentrations at extremely cold temperatures (around generally -30 to -50 deg. F) that there is much more water than the atmosphere can hold without condensation (cloud formation) occurring.
As a result, trails of cirrus clouds (contrails) are produced. Depending upon the relative humidity (RH) of the surrounding environmental air, those contrails can either rapidly evaporate (if RH is very low), leaving essentially no visible evidence, or can persist and even expand in coverage for many hours if the RH is high. In a high RH environment, jet-produced cirrus can actually scavenge water vapor from the surrounding atmosphere, causing continued growth of the contrails.
Fig. 2. Four-engine contrails produced by jet aircraft. Different illumination situations can change the contrail appearance, just as is the case with natural cirrus clouds (source).
The presence of wind shear (changing wind direction or speed with height) can cause distortion of the resulting clouds into myriad shapes. Often, the resulting jet-produced cirrus clouds are not easily distinguishable from natural cirrus clouds produced by weather systems; other times they are easily distinguishable. Literally as I was writing this, I took a picture out my office window showing both natural and jet-produced cirrus clouds.
Fig. 3. Natural and jet-produced cirrus clouds at sunrise, Huntsville, Alabama, 19 March 2025.
But when, and why, did the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory theory gain traction? And why does it persist today? The theory posits that the visual trails of condensed water vapor seen behind jet aircraft operating at high altitudes in reality represent the spraying of chemicals for some nefarious purpose(s). I routinely see comments on X and Facebook from people alarmed at the “chemtrails” they see. Those evil purposes of chemtrail production range from geoengineering (purposely changing the climate) to mind control and the spread of sickness that can be treated by pharmaceutical companies to increase their profits. Many weather experts have tried to debunk these ideas, for example Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.
Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
So, does the U.S. Air Force now own the weather in 2025, as predicted in the 1996 report? Of course not. Most of the theoretically possible technologies in that report for either clearing clouds, or creating clouds, in the battlefield did not exist in the 1990s. The report is full of pie-in-the-sky concepts, including cloud seeding to produce precipitation (the subject of much civilian research in recent decades), but admits “artificial weather technologies do not currently exist. But as they are developed, the importance of their potential applications rises rapidly.”
Yes, there have been experiments (mainly civilian) extending back to the 1950s involving seeding clouds to get them to precipitate. This involved dropping a chemical, such as dry ice or silver iodide crystals, to help convert super-cooled water droplets into precipitation. Project Stormfury, started in the 1960s, researched seeding hurricanes in the periphery to reduce the intensity of the central part of the cyclone, which is where most of the damaging winds and storm surge occur. But the idea was abandoned when it was realized hurricanes already convert almost all of the condensed cloud into precipitation anyway, without any help from humans.
This isn’t to say that it is impossible to seed clouds and produce precipitation, at least on a very localized basis in specific weather situations. But the research results have been mixed, and generally speaking, unless a cloud is getting ready to precipitate anyway, seeding doesn’t do much to the cloud, except make it precipitate sooner rather than later. People have a greatly exaggerated perception of what humans can do to purposely impact weather processes.
Now, I’m not privy to any weather modification technologies that DoD might have in the works. But after nearly a half-century of working in weather and climate, I can tell you there is little we can do to affect weather, either intentionally or unintentionally.
Let’s examine the AF report example of creating or clearing clouds in the battlefield. Imagine a wartime situation where the AF wants to clear a cloud (or fog) to allow precision visual identification of a target for bombing. Theoretically, this could be done with a powerful microwave directed-beam energy source (maybe from a special aircraft flying just ahead of a missile-carrying aircraft) to temporarily evaporate the cloud water. To give some idea of the energy that would be required to do that, we can compute how much energy is required to evaporate a path of fog having dimensions of 100x100x100 meters having a liquid water content of 0.1 grams water per kg of air. Assuming maybe 25% or so of the directed microwave beam energy will go into heating air and evaporating the liquid water, one can estimate the energy required of such a directed-beam device would be around 1 billion Watts (1 billion Joules of energy produced for 1 second). This is indeed in the realm of the estimated power output of DoD directed beam energy sources, at least from the ground. I have no idea whether such a large energy source could be produced by an aircraft.
But, even if the Air Force could, would they even want to? I’m pretty sure smart weapons now exist which have passive microwave technology allowing a target to be seen through relatively modest cloud cover.
So, What About Chemtrails? And Geoengineering?
As far as I can tell, the AF report cited above does not mention technologies that would disperse chemicals through jet exhaust (or other aircraft orifices). Besides, if such chemtrails exist, they are spreading their “chemicals” over everyone, including the families of the people conspiring to cause chemtrails.
Why would anyone do that?
Isolated photos do exist of jets dumping fuel, which comes out of different special wing ports, away from the engines. Sometimes this is cited as evidence of chemicals being spread for nefarious purposes. But this “fuel jettisoning” is a rare occurrence, usually in emergency situations, and is estimated to occur less than once per 100,000 commercial flights.
But there has been lots of research into whether jet contrails inadvertently affect climate, which would be a case of accidental geoengineering. Contrails reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface (a cooling effect), but that is more than offset by their reduction in the infrared (IR) cooling of the climate system, leading to a net heating. The best estimates are that global jet traffic produces less than 0.1 Watt per sq. meter of net radiative heating of the climate system, which is in the noise level (by comparison, natural solar heating and infrared cooling of the global-average climate system is ~240 Watts per sq. meter). Locally, where there is lots of air traffic, that value goes up to possibly 0.5 Watts per sq. meter, which is probably still not detectable in the presence of natural variations in temperature. An early study of the temperature effects of a jet traffic shutdown after 9/11 were later debunked by a subsequent study.
Now, what IS being discussed is the possibility of carrying large quantities of sulfur into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere) to produce sulfur dioxide aerosols in an attempt to slightly reduce incoming sunlight and so partially offset global warming. This is an example of what “geoengineering” usually refers to. This would require huge amounts of sulfur compounds and many jet flights to even come close to the natural cooling effects of a major volcanic eruption, the most recent example of which was the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines. That eruption injected an estimated 15-20 million tons of SO2 into the stratosphere, which resulted in cool-ish summers over Northern Hemisphere land areas in 1992. Personally, I don’t ever see this happening because there would be too much public resistance to the idea.
But no one bats an eye when Mother Nature does it.
And the few news reports you see where supposed experiments involving the ground-level release of a few kg of sulfur compounds to test the idea of altering clouds are laughable. The EPA estimates that in 2023, 1.7 million tons of SO2 were released in the U.S. from anthropogenic sources. That is over 9 million pounds per day. Compare that to the “experimental” release of a few pounds by some headline-grabbing “researchers”. As I said… laughable.
A Major Reason for the Hysteria: Jet Contrails are Visible
Chemtrail hysteria would not exist if not for the fact that jet contrails are visible. Cars and trucks also produce huge amounts of water vapor, which is sometimes seen as condensed water in cold or high-RH conditions. The reason they don’t persist is that at the temperatures and air pressures present at ground level, the air can hold orders of magnitude more water vapor without cloud formation than jet-altitude air can hold.
But no one accuses car drivers (or car manufacturers) of purposely poisoning our air with chemicals, do they?
Yes, cars produce some chemicals as a by-product of combustion (all invisible), and through EPA regulations some of those chemicals have been greatly reduced with new fuel formulations, engine design changes, and catalytic converters. But cars are never blamed for producing chemtrails because, generally speaking, we never see those emissions (including the water vapor emissions). But we DO see jet contrails.
Finally, one part of the problem is that our public education system has produced too many science-illiterate adults. They are susceptible to crazy ideas spread by attention- (and money-) seeking charlatans, some of whom might be convinced that a chemtrail conspiracy exists. Too many people today seem to be incapable of independent, critical thought.
After all, who would doubt evidence such as this?:
You must be logged in to post a comment.