Our Terms & Conditions | Our Privacy Policy
In previous articles (for example, (1) and (2)), we have explained the basic elements of global warming which make it apparent that near-term reductions in temperature can plausibly come from only one approach: Global Shading, sometimes referred to as Solar Radiation Mitigation (SRM), a form of geoengineering. We even backed the head of Climate Interactive, a professor at M.I.T. (our alma mater) who helped develop the En-ROADS (3) climate model, into (grudgingly) admitting this – before he quickly changed the subject.
That was also the conclusion of climate scientist Zeke Hausfather, quoted in an article (4) in the Washington Post: “There is no way, barring geoengineering, to prevent global temperatures from going over 1.5 degrees.” (Emphasis added.)
We have asked many prominent experts to review our findings, but those who are members of what we call the “Climate Clique” – people in the academic or commercial sectors who benefit from the current approaches to climate change, from manufacturers of electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels to academics who promote them – are dismissive of contrary opinions, and we have received no responses.
The Climate Clique’s Resistance
They appear to be determined to ignore or actively cancel approaches that don’t conform to their biases or self-interest. For example, a congressionally mandated report (6) by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) states:
A program of research into the scientific and societal implications of solar radiation modification (SRM) would enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits of SRM as a component of climate policy, alongside the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation.
But the report also includes this disclaimer: “Importantly, the issuance of this report does not signal any Executive Branch policy decision(s) regarding SRM.”
However, it turns out that they did establish a policy. They are building an “early warning system” (5) to detect whether some supervillain from a James Bond novel is secretly trying to perform SRM. And the Big Climate establishment has also scuttled the very experiments the Congressional report refers to. A Harvard experiment (7) to release trivial amounts of reflective particles in the stratosphere to measure their scattering was stopped, as was an experiment to measure the effects of seawater sprays on cloud brightening (8).
And for vindictiveness, consider the experience of Professor Judith Curry (9), a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was studying hurricane intensities. She was the darling of the Climate Clique until she started carefully examining criticisms of her work and concluded that they were valid. Once she admitted that, she was shunned by the university system, including her own, and found it nearly impossible to get published. Another Climate Clique casualty.
This is not how science should work. Scientists should keep an open mind when new experimental data or concepts contradict their prior opinions. Instead, the mandarins of the Climate Clique conspire to suppress findings that might disrupt their model. They are more interested in promoting their own narrative than in solving what they, themselves, term a catastrophe.
Now, however, there is a new expert willing to talk and who has no need to protect its turf. Moreover, it’s an expert willing to converse with us any time we like: It’s Artificial Intelligence, or AI.
Insights from AI: A Conversation with Microsoft Copilot
Below are verbatim excerpts from a recent conversation with Microsoft Copilot®, which we will abbreviate as CP. [Emphasis in original, in bold.]
US: All other things being equal, if the world cuts CO₂ emissions by 50% by 2050, will the temperature then go up or down?
CP: If global CO₂ emissions were cut by 50% by 2050, the rate of temperature increase would slow down significantly, but temperatures would likely still rise rather than decrease. The reason is that CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for a long time, and even with reduced emissions, the existing greenhouse gases would continue to trap heat.
US: All other things being equal, if the world achieves net zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, will the temperature then go up or down?
CP: If the world achieves net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050, global temperatures would stabilize rather than continue rising indefinitely. However, they wouldn’t immediately drop.
US: What are the ways of achieving lower global temperatures in the near term?
CP: Lowering global temperatures in the near term requires a combination of rapid emissions reductions and active cooling strategies. Here are some key approaches:
- Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Carbon Removal & Geoengineering
- Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
US: what about global shading, sometimes called geoengineering? Can that reduce global temperature?
CP: Yes, global shading, also known as solar geoengineering, is a proposed method to reduce global temperatures by reflecting more sunlight away from Earth.
US: How much would the temperature drop if 1% of the sunlight were blocked?
CP: Blocking 1% of sunlight would lead to a noticeable global cooling effect, but the exact temperature drop depends on various factors like atmospheric composition and cloud cover. A simplified equation for temperature change (ΔT) based on radiative forcing (ΔF) is:
ΔT=λ×ΔF\Delta T = \lambda \times \Delta F
Where:
- λ is the climate sensitivity (~0.8°C per W/m²).
- ΔF is the change in radiative forcing (~-3.4 W/m² for 1% sunlight reduction).
Thus, ΔT ≈ -2.7°C, though real-world effects depend on atmospheric feedbacks.
Estimates suggest that reducing solar radiation by 1% could lower global temperatures by approximately 0.5°C to 1°C.
US: Could global shading be achieved using large arrays of large balloons?
CP: Yes, large arrays of balloons have been proposed as a potential method for global shading to reduce solar radiation and cool the planet.
US: Could the balloon arrays be managed by AI in such a way as to enhance their effects, such as by increasing their density over low reflectance areas such as forests and thinning over cloudy areas where the sun is already blocked?
CP: AI-driven optimization could potentially increase this effect by 10-30%, leading to an additional 0.05°C to 0.3°C of cooling.
US: What about removing CO₂ from the air? Can that make an appreciable difference in lowering global temperature?
CP: Yes, removing CO₂ from the air can make a significant difference in lowering global temperatures, but it depends on the scale and efficiency of the removal methods. Scientists estimate that to keep warming below 1.5°C, we need to remove 5 to 16 billion metric tons of CO₂ per year by 2050.
US: How much could each of those methods realistically remove each year?
CP: The realistic CO₂ removal capacity of different methods varies widely based on technology, scalability, and implementation. Here are some estimates:
1. Direct Air Capture (DAC)
Current capacity: ~10,000 tons per year (small-scale plants)
Potential by 2050: ~1 billion tons per year if scaled up
2. Afforestation & Reforestation
Current removal: ~2 billion tons per year
Maximum potential: ~5-10 billion tons per year, but limited by land availability
3. Enhanced Rock Weathering
Current removal: Small-scale pilot projects
Potential by 2050: ~2-4 billion tons per year, depending on deployment
4. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
Current removal: ~40 million tons per year
Potential by 2050: ~3-5 billion tons per year, but depends on biomass availability
These methods could collectively remove 10+ billion tons of CO₂ per year by mid-century, but they must be combined with emissions reductions to have a meaningful impact on global temperatures. At realistic deployment rates, neutralizing global CO₂ emissions using carbon removal methods would take decades to centuries, depending on the scale of implementation.
US: It has been reported that 2024 was already 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial times. Is this correct?
CP: Yes, 2024 was confirmed as the warmest year on record, with global temperatures reaching about 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels
US: Would all the aforementioned methods for global shading require the permission of essentially all the world’s nations because it would impact all of them?
CP: Yes, large-scale global shading methods would likely require international cooperation and approval, as they would impact climate, ecosystems, and weather patterns worldwide.
US: Could balloon arrays be deployed over single nations or areas such as the American southwest, Australia, or India?
CP: Yes, balloon arrays could theoretically be deployed over specific regions like the American Southwest, Australia, or India, but there are several technical, political, and environmental considerations to account for.
US: Given the foregoing discussion, is it fair to summarize thusly:
1. the world is currently emitting about 40 Gtons of CO₂;
2. This number is likely to increase before it decreases
3. it is highly unlikely that the world will achieve net zero by 2050
4. the global temperature will continue to rise for the remainder of this century
5. CO₂ removal techniques are difficult to scale up and will be very expensive
6. global shading is the only method for achieving near-term global cooling
7. steerable balloon arrays are the only means of achieving local shading over a single nation.
CP: Your summary captures many key points, but let’s refine a few of them for accuracy:
- Global CO₂ Emissions – Yes, the world currently emits ~40 Gt (gigatons) of CO₂ per year from fossil fuels, industry, and land use.
- Future Emission Trends – Some forecasts predict emissions may rise further before declining, particularly in developing economies. However, ambitious climate policies could flatten or decrease emissions earlier than expected.
- Net Zero by 2050 – It remains possible but is highly challenging, requiring deep emissions cuts and large-scale carbon removal. Current commitments suggest many countries will fall short without radical acceleration.
- Temperature Trajectory – Without aggressive mitigation, global temperatures will likely keep rising this century. Some models allow for overshoot-and-recovery scenarios, where temperature peaks mid-century before cooling later.
- CO₂ Removal Challenges – Carbon removal is essential but difficult to scale, requiring vast resources and high costs. Some methods like afforestation and enhanced weathering are more scalable, while direct air capture is costly but improving.
- Global Shading for Near-Term Cooling – Solar geoengineering (e.g., stratospheric aerosols or balloon arrays) appears to be the only practical method for rapid cooling but carries significant risks and governance challenges.
- Local Shading with Balloon Arrays – Steerable balloon arrays could be feasible for shading specific regions or nations, but wind patterns, sovereignty concerns, and technical challenges must be addressed. No such system exists yet at scale.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
So there you have it. The only feasible way to reduce global temperature within the next several decades is through Global Shading, and the only way to do that without requiring international agreement is through large balloon arrays.
The Climate Clique “experts” will not tell you this. They will say, correctly, that we must reduce our CO₂ emissions. That is, indeed, necessary for the long term but, alone, it won’t actually reduce temperature. If we are serious about averting the floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other consequences of ever-rising temperatures during our own lifetimes; we must understand and address the whole problem, which means that development of Global Shading techniques should be undertaken immediately.
Further reading
Technology has a role to play in CO₂ mitigation Tilly Undi (Interview)
The Davos WEF, McKinsey, and Decarbonization
Rethinking the Perspective of Sustainable Space Progress
“We have a gold and copper mine in France, no need to go to Mars” – Interview with Éric Marcoux
Nuclear power takes off (Part 1 ): meeting the growth in global electricity demand
Like this:
Like Loading…
Images are for reference only.Images and contents gathered automatic from google or 3rd party sources.All rights on the images and contents are with their legal original owners.
Aggregated From –
Comments are closed.