cloudSix years ago, when the John Locke Foundation hosted a Global Warming Tour in North Carolina to highlight some of the key facts associated with the climate debate, one of presenter Joel Schwartz’s ideas generated some snickers from the alarmist camp. Actually, it’s more accurate to say the snickers emanated from the left-leaning echo chamber, rather than from people who knew anything about science (or any other substantive topic, for that matter).

The idea was that one potential response to global warming — if it turned out to be a real problem — was to attempt to “seed” clouds with material that would reflect more of the sun’s rays. The snarky responses back in 2007 came to mind while reading this article in the latest issue of The American Scholar, a publication of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

Last August, however, a group of researchers published an update on an alternative that is perhaps less fraught with political complexity. In the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 25 scientists detail an experimental plan to increase the albedo, or reflection coefficient, of the skies. [See also our article “Prozac for the Planet” by Christopher Cokinos, Autumn 2010.] “The basic principle behind the idea,” writes lead author John Latham, “is to seed marine stratocumulus clouds with sea water aerosol generated at or near the ocean surface.” Translation: make clouds thicker and whiter. This large-scale geoengineering project could increase Earth’s ability to reflect sunlight, thus cooling the globe.

The article reviews decades of literature about the science and technology behind marine cloud brightening, including precipitation pattern changes and increases in sea ice thickness. One drawback is that machines needed to accomplish the task, such as the Flettner rotor ship (above), may cost too much. And if not done carefully, such projects could alter global rainfall patterns or trigger other unintended ecological consequences. Still, the authors argue, the potential to maintain current global temperatures is too important to ignore.

I wouldn’t pretend to know how likely this idea is to succeed, but I am pretty confident that we’re much more likely to find a good solution to any future global warming problems if we avoid the temptation to pursue the type of “wrenching transformation” that alarmists have been pushing. Why? Climatologist Roy Spencer offers a good answer. It’s certainly a better answer than the low-grade snark that passes for analysis in much of today’s political discourse.