The globalist elites, Bill Gates being a public example, want to use geoengineering to block the sun, to lower temperatures. What could p[possibly go wrong with this? Plenty, according to a University of Pennsylvania study. The strategy, based upon what happens with volcanic reactions, may not work, since the sulphur emitted by volcanoes produces clouds in the troposphere, which is the region from the surface to 10 kilometres up. But, geoengineering using sulphuric acid would happen higher, in the stratosphere, from about 10 to 20 kilometres above the planet. It is not certain that the same chemical activities would occur. So, if the experiment fails, how is the sulphur then removed? A new problem.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/22/scientists-notice-nightmare-sulphur-injection-geoengineering-plan-might-cause-problems/

“Scientists Notice: Nightmare Sulfur Injection Geoengineering Plan Might Cause Problems

 

Eric Worrall

 

If you block the sun, you hurt food production. There’s even a study. But this terrifying problem has not stopped climate enthusiasts from pushing forward with an attempt to recreate the end of the dinosaur age, to “save” us from 1C of global warming.

Before geoengineering to mitigate climate change, researchers must consider some fundamental chemistry

By  University of Pennsylvania
NOVEMBER 22, 2021

It’s a tempting thought: With climate change so difficult to manage and nations unwilling to take decisive action, what if we could mitigate its effects by setting up a kind of chemical umbrella—a layer of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere that could reflect the sun’s radiation and cool the Earth?

According to a new study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, a collaboration among Penn scientists and two groups in Spain, atmospheric conditions in the stratosphere pose a challenge to generating sulfuric acid, making its production less efficient than might have previously been expected. Thus more groundwork exploring the chemistry of how sulfuric acid and its building blocks will react in the upper atmosphere is required in order to confidently move forward with this climate geoengineering strategy, the researchers say.

“These fundamental insights highlight the importance of understanding the photochemistry involved in geoengineering,” says Joseph S. Francisco, an atmospheric chemist in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences and a co-corresponding author on the study. “That’s critically important and it’s something that’s been ignored.”

Using sulfuric acid to blunt the sun’s rays as a means of curbing climate changeimpacts is based on a natural phenomenon: When volcanoes erupt, the sulfur they emit creates localized—or sometimes even far-reaching—cooling clouds that filter the sun. But those clouds emerge in the troposphere, which ranges from the Earth’s surface to about 10 kilometers up. Geoengineering using sulfuric acid would happen a good deal higher, in the stratosphere, from about 10 to 20 kilometers above the planet.

…

“One of the implications of this finding is, if you put sulfur dioxide up there, it’s going to just be recycling around,” Francisco says. “So it opens the door to whether we have a full understanding of atmospheric sulfur chemistry up in the stratosphere.”

…

The findings also highlight the need for a Plan B if the atmospheric chemistry doesn’t play out as expected. “It raises a fundamentally important question,” Francisco says. “If we put the sulfur dioxide in, can we get it out of the stratosphere?“

…

Read more: https://phys.org/news/2021-11-geoengineering-mitigate-climate-fundamental-chemistry.html

The abstract of the study which discusses what geoengineering could do to plant growth;

Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions

Published: 08 August 2018

Jonathan Proctor, Solomon Hsiang, Jennifer Burney, Marshall Burke & Wolfram Schlenker

Nature (2018)

Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.

Read more (paywalled):  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3

You can just imagine the scenario. Scientists pump a bit of sulfur into the atmosphere and nothing happens. Then they pump some more, the needle still doesn’t move. Then suddenly an extreme atmospheric event, like a large hurricane or a volcanic eruption, throws up some extra water vapour, and the entire sky goes black.

I’m glad at least one of them asked the obvious question, how to get the sulfur out of the atmosphere if it all goes wrong? But I’m guessing if the opportunity arose for a full scale test they would still probably want to try it out.”

Still, this may all be pointless if those scientists predicting a new global cooling period, due to diminished solar activity prove correct. If geoengineering cooling and this kick in, who know what could happen?

https://www.theepochtimes.com/scientists-global-cooling-imminent_4118457.html?slsuccess=1

“In an exclusive interview, scientist Valentina Zharkova told The Epoch Times that her 2015 paper predicting the onset of a grand solar minimum between 2020 and 2053 has been borne out, prompting her to warn that temperatures could soon rapidly fall.

Grand solar minima last for multiple solar cycles, during which the sun produces less energy and sunspot activity is low. During a previous grand solar minimum, the Maunder minimum between 1645 and 1715, glaciers expanded and the River Thames in England frequently froze over.

“The temperature during the current grand solar minimum will be slightly higher than it was during the Maunder minimum—and this grand solar minimum will be shorter,” Zharkova predicted.

In their 2015 publication, Zharkova and her colleagues derived a pair of principal components from the solar background magnetic field. They linked those components to a pair of magnetic waves originating in different layers of the sun.

Through more in-depth analysis, the team extrapolated those waves backward in time, yielding results that closely matched sunspot activity over the previous 800 years. She used the same methodology to predict a grand solar minimum over the next few decades.

As evidence of the grand solar minimum, Zharkova cited sunspot data from the Royal Observatory of Belgium along with recent low temperature and climatic extremes, including the coldest winter on record at the South Pole as well as Texas’s unusually cold, snowy weather in early 2021.

For its part, NASA stated in 2019 that “the forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years,” which is consistent with the Dalton minimum period of low sunspot activity and relatively low global temperatures spanning roughly 1790 through 1830.

Yet, the agency has claimed that a grand solar minimum, should it occur, “would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.”

Zharkova, by contrast, has argued that a grand solar minimum could reduce global temperatures by up to 1 degree Celsius.

She also told The Epoch Times that the costs of atmospheric carbon dioxide could be somewhat overstated, pointing out that its increase occurred at the same time that global life expectancies doubled.

One recent study suggested that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide was responsible for up to 40 percent of improvements in key U.S. crop yields since 1940.

Zharkova believes that governments in the Northern Hemisphere should prepare their citizens for a sharp downturn in temperatures during the next several decades.

Yet for now, governments across the world have positioned themselves to tackle anthropogenic global warming, as evidenced by the recent COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland.

The current temperature record has been a matter of controversy. Various sources, including satellite data gathered by the University of Alabama at Huntsville, the European Union, and other agencies, have shown unusually high global temperatures in recent decades, which many scientists believe are consistent with global warming driven by human activity. Other sources criticize some of these data, concluding that the conclusions around anthropogenic global warming are false, overstated, or misleading.

Zharkova thinks at least some of the people involved in promoting global warming are aware of the possibility of terrestrial cooling in the very near future.

“They want to gain their money—the taxes, or whatever they get from green technology—as soon as possible, because they will be exposed very quickly,” she said.”