Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

If you want the truth try a real paper published by scientists and experts in the field.

Not some cheesy internet forum with a bunch of goofballs talking about debunking conspiracy theories.

This is what real science and truth looks like.

Recent Advances in Measuring Cloud Albedo with Satellites

An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the
latest global observations

The role of satellite remote sensing in climate
change studies

Changes in Earth’s Albedo Measured by satellite

Detection limits of albedo changes induced by climate engineering

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

a reply to: MagicWand67

I've been on the fence quite a while in my beliefs concerning geo-engineering.

The only thing that kept me from not becoming a denier is the perseverance of those deniers into refusing almost every possibility of the existence of geo-engineering and chemtrails...it's just too fishy.

I feel you are bringing on the table good information that doesn't only sprout from people that believe in chemtrails no matter what.

a reply to: theMediator

Thank you, I feel the same way about the skeptics.

I don't know if it's happening now or not. I don't think it happening at full scale.

But I do think that it's being tested.

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: MagicWand67

The only thing that kept me from not becoming a denier is the perseverance of those deniers into refusing almost every possibility of the existence of geo-engineering and chemtrails...it's just too fishy.

Geoengineering is real - and some sort of spraying rom aircraft has definitely been discussed and proposed - so it is definitely possible - AFAIK no one has ever denied that.

But there is no evidence at all that it is happening, moreover if it WERE happening then the sulphates that would be sprayed would not look like contrails!

a reply to: MagicWand67

so still no actual evidence of chemtrails existing, nor of geoengineering by spraying from planes being done.

What were you trying to provide evidence for?

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's been stated many times by the OP that this thread is not about the chemtrail/contrail argument.

I never brought up chemtrails once and I never used the word evidence for any of the links I posted.

I've repeatedly said these are all atmospheric studies and research that might be related to SRM.

originally posted by: theMediator
a reply to: MagicWand67

I've been on the fence quite a while in my beliefs concerning geo-engineering.

The only thing that kept me from not becoming a denier is the perseverance of those deniers into refusing almost every possibility of the existence of geo-engineering and chemtrails...it's just too fishy.

I feel you are bringing on the table good information that doesn't only sprout from people that believe in chemtrails no matter what.

That is an interesting point. I have been thinking about it lately. So if there were a large, or even persistent group oh holocaust deniers, then you might jump onto their bandwagon? I doubt most sane folks would, so why would it make a difference if a group of people were just not lemmings and needed some verifiable proof rather than some idiot on You tube be used to make any decisions for you?

I think we all know it could happen, and most probably will happen at some point. It had better have some oversight and some public knowledge about it. Which is why I want to know if it's a real concern yet.

I can debunk and call BS till the cows come home, but when someone brings a real live fact to the party, then the whole ballgame will change. I hope you are around then to see what some of us have to say. truth trumps ego, but lies have no place here.

a reply to: network dude

Holocaust Deniers? Really?

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
It's been stated many times by the OP that this thread is not about the chemtrail/contrail argument.

Yeah - he decided that once he started having trouble because he made it about chemtrails in the title.

That's his problem - and apparently yours - not mine.

I never brought up chemtrails once and I never used the word evidence for any of the links I posted.
I've repeatedly said these are all atmospheric studies and research that might be related to SRM.

As indeed they are.

My question was - so what?

There has never ben any doubt there is research going on into the nature of the atmosphere, some of it specifically "for" SRM.

This is not news - so my question is - so what?

Hey Guys, as the OP of the thread I can at least politely ask we get away from discussing each other and back to the topic which would be SRM, Chemtrails and relation to Climate Mitigation.

Heck, no one cares that I hadn't intended this become over half a dozen pages back and forth about Chemtrails or the parameters of discussing them, so please, feel free to carry on with that.

After all, I did use the word in the title, and while I won't change my use of language and terms at the demand of others, I'll admit it was a bit poorly chosen for how it became the absolute and overwhelming focus of the thread. So be it, and such as it is.

Still, please, the personal doesn't work and while I can't Mod my own thread under almost any circumstances, there are roughly 74 other members of Site Staff who have no such issues and may well do just that.

Just my thoughts and polite request. Thanks!

This is an important article. It describes how the natural variations of the albedo are significant enough that it would be hard to determine the effects of small scale climate engineering.

Natural variability in Earth’s reflectiveness would limit our ability to detect effects of climate engineering

It’s the lack of consistency that would make any attempt to measure the impact of climate engineering especially tricky. One way scientists can estimate our technological ability to detect a change in reflectivness is by studying natural “climate engineering” events, especially large volcanic eruptions in the tropics that injected sunlight-scattering particles way into the stratosphere.

After analyzing more than a decade of satellite data, NOAA and NASA scientists concluded that to be detectable above Earth’s natural background variability, a three-month climate-engineering experiment in the equatorial zone would need to cause an increase in sunlight reflection that was three times as large as what occurred when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991.

It's based on this paper below

Detection limits of albedo changes induced by climate engineering

A key question surrounding proposals for climate engineering by increasing Earth's reflection of sunlight is the feasibility of detecting engineered albedo increases from short-duration experiments or prolonged implementation of solar-radiation management. We show that satellite observations permit detection of large increases, but interannual variability overwhelms the maximum conceivable albedo increases for some schemes.

Detection of an abrupt global average albedo increase 0.002 (comparable to a ~0.7 W m−2 reduction in radiative forcing) would be unlikely within a year, given a five-year prior record. A three-month experiment in the equatorial zone (5° N–5° S), a potential target for stratospheric aerosol injection, would need to cause an ~0.03 albedo increase, three times larger than that due to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, to be detected. Detection limits for three-month experiments in 1° (latitude and longitude) regions of the subtropical Pacific, possible targets for cloud brightening, are ~0.2, which is larger than might be expected from some model simulations.

I have the full .PDF version downloaded but I'm not sure how to upload it for viewing here.

EDIT:

6 page PDF DOWNLOAD

All you can really do with PDF's are link to their original source online. Also, it's very helpful to note roughly how many pages and size it is, especially if it's a big one. I'm being reminded myself real quick right now with a DSL line vs. my normal cable ... just a couple hundred pages of PDF can be a BIG (and quite long...zzzzz...) difference.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: network dude

Holocaust Deniers? Really?

Yes, you seem to be a fan of that logic, it sounds crazy when you put holocaust in place of chemtrails doesn't it.
It's a shame you ignored the rest of that post.

This paper is a very interesting read. Lots of future scenarios are looked at and discussed. It shows some insight to how decision makers might handle unforeseen events caused by the use of SRM.


33 page PDF
Scenario Planning for Solar Radiation Management

a reply to: MagicWand67

This is what real science and truth looks like.

Is this also what the truth looks like?

Recent Advances in Measuring Cloud Albedo with Satellites

An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the
latest global observations

The role of satellite remote sensing in climate
change studies

Changes in Earth’s Albedo Measured by satellite

Detection limits of albedo changes induced by climate engineering

Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming

So you can find what you think is the truth...

Now did you actually read any of them?

And your 5th link down doesn't work.

a reply to: theMediator

The only thing that kept me from not becoming a denier is the perseverance of those deniers into refusing almost every possibility of the existence of geo-engineering and chemtrails...it's just too fishy.

Sorry to see you being so misinformed.

You see no denier will say there isn't a possibility of chemtrails and geoengineering, but what they will do is say there is no evidence that either of the two are being done as of this post.

And what is even more fishy, is the fact that people will blindly believe things without any evidence of their existence.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

As indeed they are.

My question was - so what?

There has never ben any doubt there is research going on into the nature of the atmosphere, some of it specifically "for" SRM.

This is not news - so my question is - so what?

Well, to answer your question of "so what".

The links I'm posting are for anyone who is interested in reading about geoengineering and specifically SRM. I like keeping myself updated on this topic and I thought there might be others here who feel that way too.

If you're not interested in learning more then don't read it. If you do read it, you can form your own opinion about the info. No one is telling you what to read or how to think. Why are you trying to force your opinions on others in such an adversarial and aggressive manner?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Now did you actually read any of them?

And your 5th link down doesn't work.

Of course I read them.

I posted the working link for that one further down in a separate post.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Of course I read them.

Now the most important question...Did you understand them?

Because reading something is different from understanding it.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I'm not the topic of this thread.

How about commenting on-topic for a change?