By Joe Bastardi
Written by Joe Bastardi
Editors’ Note: One of the arguments against capitalism is that, in the pursuit of production, it can create “externalities” such as pollution, which impose a social cost not borne by the company but instead imposed upon the general population to deal with. What they fail to mention is the history of socialist regimes like Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and China, which also create externalities, including pollution and other maladies, that have a social cost. Now we have a relatively new phenomenon. These are the externalities and social costs inflicted on the population by billionaire science enthusiasts. Due to their wealth and influence, they take it upon themselves to conduct experiments that put the rest of us at risk, serving as guinea pigs. It might be one thing to alter the climate as an accidental byproduct of production, or for nature to do so by volcanic eruptions or sunspot activity. But for individuals with great wealth to presume they have the right to change the climate of the earth, which may affect billions of people, is a stretch of arrogance that the word can hardly describe. Do we get to have any say in this? What if it goes haywire? Who bears the costs? Do we have any course of action against Bill Gates? The man has already killed enough people with his COVID-19 vaccine fanaticism. But that was in cooperation with the government. The question remains: Who regulates the regulators? Who regulated the regulator in bed with billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros? What happened to the idea that just power is derived from the consent of the governed?
At the Munich Security Conference last week, George Soros got onstage to talk about the existential risk that climate change poses to human civilization, as well as what appeared to be the 92-year-old Hungarian-American billionaire’s preferred method of addressing it: brightening the clouds over the Arctic to reflect the sun’s energy away from the melting ice caps. But questions aside as to whether Soros—ludicrously maligned in conspiracy-minded right-wing circles—is the best advocate for solar geoengineering, he’s not the only billionaire who’s recently become interested in bouncing the sun’s rays back into space. Among the world’s ultra-rich, plans to swat back the sun’s rays like they’re capital gains taxes (to, as it were, apply a generous helping of sunblock to the earth’s atmosphere) have seemingly been all the rage. Time Magazine
So I got into a back-and-forth with Grok about this. One thing I noticed is that 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.
*****
This article was published by CFACT, the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.
Image Credit: GROK image generator
Sourced from PRICKLY PEAR
