Polluting our way out of global warming: The lunacy of sulphur dioxide SRM

Ever looked up at the sky and wondered what those persistent clouds coming out of aircraft engines were all about?

Oh, that's just frozen water vapor... "contrails"... right?

Nope.

Those are contrail-induced cirrus clouds, and a very big part of Big Oil's plans for SRM (Solar Radiation Management).

What is SRM?  It's anthropogenic climate alteration; or, in a word — geoengineering.

It's the notion that purposeful use of sulphur dioxide emissions from Jet-A aviation fuel can reflect the Sun's rays and cool the planet.

Want to reverse global warming?  All we need to do is pollute the sky (tropopause actually) with sulphur dioxide aircraft emissions and maybe, additional metallic nanoparticles.  These (pollution) emissions will pollute the planet to victory over global warming from pollution!

Pollution to the rescue for pollution.

Who would propose such a concept?

A graduate of (morally-bankrupt) MIT.

Enter Harvard professor Dr. David W. Keith (PhD '91 MIT) and his plan to halt global warming.  See... Is This Plan to Combat Climate Change Insane or Insanely Genius?

"Harvard physicist David Keith wants to use two jets and one million tons of sulfur dioxide a year to halt global warming...

He wants to spray sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere to create a reflective barrier that would deflect radiation and lower global temperature.  A couple of planes flying 20 kilometers above the Earth once a year could spray a fine layer of sulfuric acid, enough to reflect back 1 percent of the sun’s rays."

To answer the question posed by Smithsonian Magazine above... it's insane.

Of course, it's common knowledge that sulphur compounds in the air is what causes environmentally devastating acid rain.

Once again, climate investigator Jim Lee has compiled an excellent (2015) Report on this topic from his ClimateViewer News.

Think carefully about what you read and hear in that Report.

As asked before on ClimateX... "is there a chance that some scientific communities exist that are too reckless and arrogant for us to tolerate unchecked?"

Surely, the geoengineering community qualifies.

And yes, geoengineering is real.

If you need some additional proof of this fact, one of its conferences (American Meteorological Society) is going on right now in Austin, Texas... 21st Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification

7 comments
up
14

Comments

Rick Shankman's picture

schiz·o·phre·ni·a

schiz·o·phre·ni·a

/skitsəˈfrēnēə,ˌskitsəˈfrenēə/

"noun: schizophrenia

a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality... and a sense of mental fragmentation.

(in general use) a mentality or approach characterized by inconsistent or contradictory elements."

Dr. David W. Keith:

"Why This Geoengineering Pioneer’s Worst Nightmare Is a Trump Tweet

Harvard professor David Keith worries that politicians opposed to emissions cuts will 'recklessly' promote altering the atmosphere instead."

 Also Dr. David W. Keith:

"Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric Geoengineering Experiments

The climate researchers intend to launch a high-altitude balloon that would spray a small quantity of reflective particles into the stratosphere."

up
9
Aryt Alasti's picture

Here's relatively recent

Here's relatively recent commentary from David Keith, and as a separate item of interest, news about a geoengineering insurance discussion which is upcoming at Harvard.

up
12
Rick Shankman's picture

You couldn’t make this stuff

You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried...

David Keith clearly and scientifically outlines geoengineering program ​

“... so, you’d put like 20,000 tons of sulphuric acid in the stratosphere per year, and each year, you’d have to put a little more...

... so we put 50 Million tons of sulphuric acid in the air as pollution, and it kills a million people a year worldwide...

Question: Okay, and that’s good or bad?

Answer: That’s terrible.

Question: But it would be better if we put more in?

Answer: We’re talking about 1% of that, a tiny fraction of that, so we should reduce -

Question: So if it kills a million people and we’re only doing 1%, it only kills 10,000 more.

Answer: You can do math.”

up
10