Even with the technologies combined and applied to the widest extent possible, these options would not prevent mean surface temperatures from
rising beyond 2C target if CO2 emissions continue as they are, the simulation found.

- 'Abject stupidity' -

The side effects "could be as bad as the climate change effects that they are trying to prevent," Keller warned.

The study found that SRM was the only method with the potential to swiftly reduce warming.

But it also had some of the largest potential side effects, such as changing rain patterns -- and could never be stopped without instantly warming the
planet.

I think that discussions should be taking place. People should be watching for this type of thing. I also think that jumping to conclusions with not
basis for said conclusion will help nothing and only cloud the issue.

Another vote here for 'Abject stupidity'. It seems ridiculous to me to put more stuff into the atmosphere to counter the stuff we've been putting
into the atmosphere and I hope it never has to come to that

Climate change via global heating ins not a settled science despite what liars say about what is causing it. So let's have something like the old
International Geophysical Year of 1957 where the best minds from all countries set about determining the real causes. Surely, that is the first
requirement before any action commences. Why waste time and efforts attempting to stop and eliminate human causes of the problem when they may be
irreverent to a larger cause such as solar radiation (which seems to be a fairly damning case)?

As it stands, the proponents of a human cause seem to dwell on reducing emissions on the modern western countries that have done much in reducing
emissions (especially of autos and aircraft) over the decades. To China and others an almost free pass is handed out because, you know, we should let
them grown to gain economic parity before we slap them down to our level of emission controls. That strategy is more tied to a political correctness
of this "equality" business of the UN than to where the worst aspects of the problem lays. The decline in manufacturing (and jobs) in the West in
the last three decades certainly have reduced emissions by huge amounts. Where is credit for that and why should the West pay for gross emissions in
other countries? The real driving force in allowing the lesser developed countries to blame us--and for us to blame ourselves--for the problem is not
hard to discern. The governments in decline in the West know a juicy tax when they see one and applying a cost to every aspect of life even
breathing in the form of an all-encompassing carbon tax makes their mouths water. As with any blanket tax on the entirely citizenry, major portions
of those enormous funds will be bleed off to other uses outside of those seemingly stipulated in the reason for the tax.

There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one
of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.

You get the big picture. I wish more of those in charge understood as you do.
Regardless of who or what is to blame for our issues, we have issues. We pollute too much, we don't do enough to replenish the de-forestation
problem. We put dollars in front of nature. We could spend the next 50 years bitching about who's to blame for the global temps, and that alone
will solve nothing. If we try to manufacture nature, we may find that we screwed up way more than we could ever dream of fixing.

But, if we look at where our biggest polluters are right now, and try to change that, we may make the future a bit brighter.
We didn't cause all the problems overnight, so nothing is going to get fixed overnight, but over time, if we do something smart about the pollution,
we will make a difference. Everyone wants results right now, and that's not likely.

smurfy
There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one
of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.

Step 1, identify what a chemical contrail is and what's in it.

Step 2, figure out who is spraying it.

Step 3, file charges as what you describe is against international law.

The volcanoes erupting lately around the world will help cool the earth. The earth has a sort of built in safeguard, the eruptions can cool the
earth. I think that they were a tad bit more right back in the fifties, looking at the big picture.

The scientists that are toying with geo-engineering are talking the governments into funding their projects so they can make a job for themselves with
high pay and money to do their research. This is possibly not necessary, but you also need to understand that the warmer we make the earth the more
eruptions and the more energy in the crust. This will result in a quickening of the earth and plate movement also.

We need to keep our emissions in check and also stop dumping toxins into the environment that jeopardize our food supply. We should not take risks
with putting nuclear power plants in areas where there is even a risk of seismic activity or tsunamis. We should not deforest the earth for profits
stemming from consumerism, these trees our our friends. We need to lessen our waste and throw consumerism to the lions. Death dating, or planned
obsolescence, is a sin.

smurfy
There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one
of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.

That does seem to be the general feeling and I'd agree with you 100%. They're merged and overlapping issues, not because we say so but because those
doing this for a living say so in how they look at the options to alter the climate by deliberate action.

If it weren't right out on the table as among the viable options, it would be more debatable. Since it is, it's a perfect marriage of the two
closely inter-related topics.

But the counter productive complaining about something that isn't happening does nothing.(IMHO)

I agree, to a point. Everything in moderation....even debunking other topics, eh?

Still, who is to say nothing is happening? Are any of us in such a position of high authority and clearance for information to know, as a fact, this
isn't happening and has never happened? I've read both sides of the argument as it's carried on and on, and it's interesting to watch when folks
aren't directly tearing at each other. Either side makes good points, neither side has the evidence needed to 'close the deal' on a definitive
statement of Yeah or Neigh and it makes for ongoing discussion which is never boring.

We all have our rights to an opinion though, naturally, and I'm certainly of the opinion that they aren't discussing SRM techniques at the level of
United Nation gatherings for policy consideration....if someone, somewhere hasn't done it to show it's more than a pipe dream with no real chance of
working on a basic level.

I can't be sure tho...the same as no one can much prove a negative to say it hasn't happened. That's what makes the topic so interesting.

It was the observations of the chemical plowing of our skies over the years that revealed the geo-engineering scheme, which has been going on for some
time.

But that's just your opinion. There are plenty of other people who studied the theory and decided that what we see in the sky is contrails. Normal
residue of increased air traffic and the result of new engine technology. If the lines in the sky were something other than frozen water droplets,
then don't you think that someone would test it and report the obvious crime?

Seriously, if SRM was taking place right now, it would be a HUGE infraction of international law. Please tell me you understand that.

Unfortunately you and others here will fail at separating the two, especially when you start threads that in my opinion are meant to be
combative.

This thread was in response to an article I read this morning. It certainly isn't meant to be combative, but in the spirit of trying to stop the
childish fighting in this forum, I invite you to alert anything I say that is offensive. I will reciprocate.

I personally feel that Geo-engineering is too important of a topic to be mixed with what I consider to be a mis-identification of contrails. It's
just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree.

Geo-engineering is a lot more dangerous to our environment than just letting the forces of nature correct what ever ills she is feeling.

Between geo-engineering and fracking, we are pretty much screwed.

I agree. I am not saying we should sit on our hands. I just think we need to fix the obvious things first, Like stopping fracking until we
understand if it will have detrimental affects on our world, or putting a whole lot of effort into finding some form of alternative fuel.

I swear, if the two sides would try to understand each other, we would find we have more in common than not.

Wrabbit2000
if someone, somewhere hasn't done it to show it's more than a pipe dream with no real chance of working on a basic level.

And that is a very good point. It very well could have happened somewhere, at some point. but.....

When you look up at the sky and see lots of contrails that most likely cover an entire state, can you see how if it was some secret program, it's not
very good at being hidden? If it was a spraying operation, as has been mentioned here numerous times, all it would take is the taking of a sample and
exposing the whole thing. Am I to believe that nobody in this whole world believes in the conspiracy deeply enough to spend a few thousand dollars to
find out?

I don't think anyone here denies that it could happen. I do know that what I feel is that what we see in the sky fit into the contrail box so
perfectly that you would have to do some magic to prove them other.

Wrabbit2000
Are any of us in such a position of high authority and clearance for information to know, as a fact, this isn't happening and has never happened?

And just to point this out, no, none of us on either side can say with any authority that it is, or is not happening. But we can use reason and
common sense to examine the evidence and make an educated guess.

Once it moved beyond a theory, it can be addressed and dealt with. I think you will agree that both sides are guilty of speaking in absolutes.
(probably being backed into a corner)

I have been reading about the "Cool Roof" and "Reflective Sheeting" proposals.

Most of our city infrastructure absorbs heat, black top roads, dark roofing, destruction of natural shading. Altering the materials we use for such
things would have a positive impact, and leave us without all of the metallic fallout that destroys the natural environment that contributes to the
balance we are loosing fast. The cost of doing so would be a fraction of that proposed for dumping reflective materials into the upper atmosphere.

We find that an increase in reflectivity over land that mitigates the global mean warming from a doubling of CO2 leads to a large residual warming
in the southern hemisphere and cooling in the northern hemisphere since most of the land is located in northern hemisphere. Precipitation and runoff
over land decrease by 13.4 and 22.3%, respectively, because of a large residual sinking motion over land triggered by albedo enhancement over land.
Soil water content also declines when albedo over land is enhanced.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.