I know that people disagree about the science and causes of “global warming,” but can we all agree that having scientists engage in large-scale environmental science experiments is not a great idea?
Consider the proposal to engage in “cloud whitening.” Humans would spray fine droplets of sea water into the air. The theory is that water vapor would condense around the salt crystals, producing new clouds or making existing clouds thicker and therefore “whiter.” Whiter clouds reflect more solar energy back into space than does cloudless sky, so creating more, larger, and whiter clouds should reflect even more solar energy back into space, cooling the Earth. The theory hasn’t been tested. Nevertheless, many scientists apparently have seized on “cloud whitening” as a quick way to make a dent in global warming trends.
Now a scientist has announced results of a study that raises some significant cautionary issues about the concept of “cloud whitening.” Her study concludes that lots more salt would need to be sprayed than first thought, and that if we don’t get the size of the particles precisely right we could reduce cloud cover rather than increase it — and thereby increase the warming effect of solar energy.
I don’t know who will ultimately decide whether humanity should engage in some of the large-scale environmental engineering projects that periodically are proposed by scientists — but I hope it is someone with a healthy skepticism about the certainty of science and some humility about the ability of humans to confidently predict the results of their efforts on something as complex as the Earth’s weather systems. We get all kinds of assurances from scientists and engineers, and sometimes they are wrong. It’s one thing when they screw up a machine or a theory about how gravity works. It’s quite another if their tinkering wrecks weather patterns and unintentionally turns Iowa into the Midwestern version of the Sahara Desert.
Interestingly, climate change apparently played a role — although no one seems to be attributing that climate change to humans (yet). During the Ice Age, there were smaller concentrations of carbon dioxide, which discouraged tree growth. As a result, there were vast pasture lands that were perfectly suited to large grass- and plant-munching beasts like the woolly mammoth. As the Ice Age receded, climates warmed and carbon dioxide concentrations increased, which in turn led to the development of forests that encroached on the grasslands that were crucial to the survival of the mammoths.
I cannot pretend to add anything to the scientific debate on the reality of global warming, or its causes if it exists. What I find interesting is that so much of the response to the global warming debate is based upon computer programs that purport to forecast the future based upon past data. The first article linked above demonstrates that the computer models, with their straight-line projection of temperature increases, have in fact been proven wrong by the actual data of the past 10 years. In any rational scientific world, scientists would scrap the models, reexamine the data, consider other causal factors, identify reasons why the models have been shown to be inaccurate, and engage in a vigorous debate, complete with alternative hypotheses and testing of those hypotheses, to determine new theories. Some scientists appear to be doing this, but others seem to be trying to defend the computer models by arguing that it is the damning actual data, and not the models, that are wrong. Such a response does not seem to be consistent with the “scientific method” and instead suggests a political or social agenda.
