Scientists propose adding smog to atmosphere to fight global warming

My annual birthday-month fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now on-going. Not only do your donations help pay my bills, they give me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

What could possibly go wrong? Global warming scientists have proposed injecting sulphate aerosols (another name for pollution) into the upper atmosphere in order to counter their predicted global temperature rise.

Experts are considering ploughing sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere which would cause some of the suns rays to be reflected back out into space. This could potentially cool the Earth down and help counter the effects of climate change, scientists say.

The move would also help reduce coral bleaching and help calm powerful storms.

James Crabbe, from the University of Bedfordshire, is leading the study and his initial results suggest the plan could help cool the planet.

This proposal is based on such flimsy science it appalls me that any scientist would even consider it, especially when you think about the unknown consequences.



  • wayne

    I can’t resist….

    Weather Control Explained by Alex Jones to Eddie Bravo & Joe Rogan
    Joe Rogan Experience

  • ken anthony

    I’ve said it before and will say it again, venus is the place to practice terraforming. Don’t practice with my neck.

  • Lee S

    While I am pretty much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a real and present danger, I have also in the past likened any geo-engineering solution to trying to fix a buckled bicycle wheel, while it’s spinning, in the dark, with a mallet …..
    What could possibly go wrong????

  • Phill O

    The Sudbury basin is a good example of putting sulphur into the atmosphere.

    Mt Pinatubo was a good example of nature doing it. The skies were unusable for amateur astronomy for two years. Temperatures dropped drastically for two years for the Canadian prairies and crop losses were real.

    Before one condemns CO2, remember the buffering capacity of the earths atmosphere and the simple reaction
    H2O+CO2>H2CO3. H3CO3 is a week acid and an aqueous solution of it has a pH of about 5.5. Also remember (when doing acid base titrations) cover any freshly distilled water (and the test solution as well as the base solution) so it does not get contaminated with CO2 which will change the pH. That darned CO2 just dissolves so fast in water!

    So what do you think really happens to all that CO2 emitted by burning stuff? First consider the total water deposited on the earth in a given year.

    I am an AGW skeptic looking for alternate theories which fit the facts. Bob continues to present data for other theories.

  • Chris

    “Experts” thinking that they can out think nature and know then outsmart Her processes reveals only a very small part of their egos

  • Laurie

    There are numerous such examples of geoengineering discussions on the part of think tanks with public funding:

  • Phill O

    OHHHH Being sponsored by the Ontario government raises many questions to me. First, let it be known that the Ontario government holds the world record for a non-national debt. Ontario supported the NAFTA which saw large number of manufacturers relocate to Mexico. Brockville Ontario went from a thriving community to a retirement town. Elliot Lake Ontario now is also a retirement community when it used to be a thriving uranium mining town.

    The down right stupid things the Ontario government has done would require Bob to spend twice his time just to scratch the surface.

    Whenever man has tried to put biological means into affect, they have backfired big time. WHY? It is simple: we do not have all the facts and there are many unintended consequences.

    Further, the science behind the CO2 model has one very distinct flaw. Current measurements of CO2 concentrations are fairly new and there is no baseline data going back in time even 50 years. Other techniques for estimating CO2 concentrations have flaws. This leads to a similar situation as the ozone fiasco where conclusions were made based on new measurement techniques where, again, no quality baseline data was known.

  • Edward

    Oh, great. [sarcasm.]

    Global warming is caused by Los Angeles cleaning up its air. Well, that makes it man caused. The science is settled now!

    But wait, how did the Earth ever get a Little Ice Age without all that human-caused smog?

    Lee S,
    You wrote: “I am pretty much convinced that anthropogenic climate change is a real and present danger

    No you aren’t. I call BS.

    You still use powered transportation, buy goods and services that are delivered by powered transportation, buy goods that are made by using power, use power throughout your house, cook your meals, heat and cool your house, and use an electrically powered computer to comment on BTB. If you thought that there was a danger due to any anthropogenic climate change then you would have given up all these things in hopes of preventing the dangerous results of their use.

  • Max

    This must be a joke, fake news or something. Can you imagine China after reading this article claiming that their pollution problem is saving the planet? That the London fog (where the word smog comes from) the burning of coal to heat homes which killed people every night, can now be said to be saving the planet? Who knew… Should we return to the good old days?
    That every volcano that explodes and changes the temperature of the earth for years is good, even though crops fail and animals die, it is OK, it is saving the planet?
    Forget the unknowns, the well-known’s are plentiful in example of the harm it does. I am fascinated by the solutions which basically say “we must destroy the planet in order to save it… ” Some examples are here:

    “Beware of people with good intentions.” Well meaning people feel they must do something, even if it’s the wrong thing.

    Here is another website, out of the many, who are sounding the warning bells. I think they take it too far. Lots of documentation, big website, too much conspiracy theory. It’s hard to separate the truth from the fiction.

    I have mentioned that I had a long discussion with an engineer/chemist from an oil company. (We are both in the same steal workers union.) (Ha, steel)
    Congress mandated back in the 80s that all gasoline had to be unleaded. That means sulfur free. This cleaned up the air of most cities, especially Los Angeles. The photochemical smog was caused by the reaction of water and sulfur to form sulfuric acid fog.
    The Oil refinery had to dispose the sulfur byproduct, they created red fuel for off-road use outside the cities. Other uses for the tainted oil soaked Sulfur were tried but failed. Putting it back in the ground contaminating groundwater was too costly of an option. Especially now that fracking has re-energized old slow producing wells.
    The solution was to put the leftover sulfur in to jet fuel.
    In jet fuel it acts like an octane booster making the engines more efficient. This is a grey area not regulated by the EPA. The sulfur is spread over a wide area with low concentrations of p.p.m. (it is also a convenient way of disposing other harmful chemicals in low concentrations to not affect aircraft safety. Also known as Cemtrails)
    The telltale sign to look for is that sulfur is the condensation nuclei for cloud formation. The airplane exhaust full of sulfur will attract moisture and humidity. High air pressure on a cloudless day, the contrails will evaporatorate. On humid days they will grow thicker collecting moisture.
    Hydrogen sulfide is lighter than air and is chemically similar to S02. It occurs naturally, made by the bacteria in the ocean, we would have no clouds without it. It is also called acid rain. In low concentrations, it’s also called fertilizer.
    Geo engineering to save the planet is just a cover story for what is really going on. Very clever of them, to enlist the eco-warriors to help them pollute the planet.

    When I was in high school, they were talking about loading airplanes with black carbon to dump on the ice caps to speed up the warming and melting to prevent another Ice Age catastrophe. Seeding the oceans with iron to promote the growth of plankton.
    I was recently listening to people advocate putting dirt in orbit around the earth instead of mirrors to block the sunlight… Just crazy I tell you, CRAZY!!! Not only will it knock out all the satellites, it would be impossible to manufacture enough Rockets to make a difference, the dirt would end up like the rings of Saturn. (Although I would love seeing a lot of shooting stars at night…) How much light is actually prevented from hitting Saturn with billions of tons of ice crystals surrounding the planet? Poor reactionary solutions without any thought. (I would point out that it did not work for Saturn, it is seven times as far from the sun as we are, and it still puts out twice as much energy as it receives from the sun.)

    Lee S,
    The bicycle wheel was a great example, having fixed bicycles I can totally visualize it. As Wayne would say, good stuff!
    I agree, the solution is worse than the problem. Even though we may not agree what the problem actually is. All I know is the blocking of sunlight hurts all life on the planet, the blocking of heat that comes from the sun can be accomplished with water vapor by increasing the sunlight on the ocean for increased evaporation. The cloud cover, you can see in pictures from space, cover approximately 30% of the earths surface already. (300,000 ppm) unfortunately, this would have a feedback mechanism. It will probably cause frequent storms and cooler temperatures. ( less sun it cools the earth, more sun it cools the earth. We just can’t win… I pray for more warming)
    Water vapor always causes cooler temperatures. Although it can act as an insulator resisting heat loss, it never adds to the heat.
    Somehow it does not play a prominent role in global warming or Geo engineering because it’s part of the hydrosphere (oceans). instead they focus on carbon dioxide which is nearing 400 ppm. It is not 30% of the atmosphere, it is 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% of the atmosphere. Such a rare gas that it cannot possibly influence the atmospheric dynamics. To make matters worse, carbon dioxide is invisible to all solar energy below 700 nm. The shorter wavelengths of light above 700 nm have a 99.96% chance of hitting oxygen or nitrogen in the atmosphere. The odds of light absorption/heat retention by CO2 are so low that it cannot possibly be measured… That’s why The CO2 Theory has never been proven. It’s Just math.
    The heat retention factor of CO2 is not significantly different than oxygen or nitrogen. If you don’t believe me, fill a bread sack full of air. Then after holding your breath, blow up a second bread sack with approximately 5% CO2 from your body. (50,000 ppm) walk outside when it is cold with a infrared thermometer or camera and see which cools fastest. I tried it with dry ice (100% CO2, 1,000,000 ppm) from making Halloween witches brew, and saw no difference in the speed of the heat loss. Saying carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is pure magic, or proof that God exists.

    Phill O,
    Sounds like you’re a chemist knowing a lot about CO2.
    I would open a cold pop from the fridge and pour half of it into a glass of ice just to watch the difference in the CO2 bubbles. While the pop in the bottle would fizz, The carbon dioxide in the glass would be sucked into the ice, absorbing the CO2 preventing the bubbles from escaping. Warm the ice on your tongue and you can feel the CO2 fizzing to get out. I have always believed that ice core samples would be tainted by this phenomenon. As you expressed, distilled water is contaminated so quickly by carbon dioxide.
    I agree completely that we do not have a baseline to predict what the future will bring because we cannot compare it to the past. I Think of the release of carbon dioxide from rotting or burning as simply returning the CO2 to the air from which it came. The oceans are a huge carbon sink. And I’m not just talking about limestone antacid that averages 2000 feet thick on the ocean floor… Underwater volcanoes emit carbon dioxide which is compressed into a liquid and is suspended there in great concentrations. (does carbonic acid eat other carbon substance like seashells and coral?)(One of the largest ingredients in seawater is calcium, is it neutralized by this?)
    When CO2 reaches the surface, it expands into a gas again feeding the plankton making the blue ocean turn green with life creating an abundance of oxygen for planet. But only if we do not block the sunlight.
    phil, you also mentioned the O zone fiasco… I would like to know your thoughts on the matter. I know Pinetree’s emit a natural pollution of hydrocarbon smog to protect them selves from O-Zone in the summer. It is how the blue mountains got its name.
    I got interested in the subject matter because of the claims about under arm deodorant destroying the ozone layer 30 years ago. Working in refrigeration, it was very unsettling to suddenly be a criminal for using Freon. A $10,000 fine for releasing it into the atmosphere on purpose or not. (most people do not know that this was a political decision brokered with Dupont. It had nothing to do with science or O-Zone or Antarcticas annual O-Zone hole)(it usually closes back up by the end of October after the returning Sun light burns off the polar stratospheric clouds that has been collecting there from the sun and frozen there all winter) The water created from the oxidation of methane and ammonia from the sun is the only explanation why Antarctica gets a new foot of ice every year.

    Of course it’s one of the laws of nature that matter cannot be created or destroyed… O-Zone is made from ionizing radiation from the sun breaking apart oxygen molecule (02) which then forms O-zone (03), or more likely nitrous oxide because of the abundance of nitrogen. There is so much nitrous oxide created during the daytime that the sky glows green at night as seen from the space station. The ozone levels drop from 9 ppm to 3 ppm during the night as the higher state molecule gives up it’s energy before the cold of space freezes it. The next day it starts creating O-Zone all over again turning our sky blue. To stop this process, and remove all ozone from our atmosphere, you must stop the sun from shining, or remove all oxygen from earth.
    Now you know why this has become a non-issue… Somebody did the math.
    It is the same with cow methane. If the cows did not exist to eat the hay and grass, the hay and grass would rot on the ground and become methane anyway. (Without the milk, cheese, meat, shoe leather, organic fertilizer that cows give us) cows consume a plant-based diet that humans cannot digest… We do not compete for survival, and yet they give us so much.

    Because people’s eyes gloss over when I speak of parts per million, I use the analogy of money to get my point across. Parts per million is like having 1 million dollars on your kitchen table. 100 stacks of $100 bills 100 bills high representing our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide at 400 ppm is like taking 4 bills from one of the stacks. Look at how much is left over, would anyone notice the four $100 bills missing? And yet all life depends upon it. Methane is worse, at 1.8 ppm it is the equivalent of $1.80 cents. As president Obama would say, there is no there there…

  • pzatchok

    Wouldn’t a few nuclear explosions do the same thing?
    Start a nuclear winter.

    Plus they would be faster so we could wait until we are possessive that global warming is happening.

  • Cotour

    A what if in fact the earth is about to trend into a cooling cycle?

    Which is a reasonable assumption.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *