0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Not that I'm aware of.
How about we start our investigation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
From that very article: "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct."
This process is known as radiative forcing
I believe this negative perception of geoengineering is caused by the profound and organized disinformation surrounding the climategate controversy:
A consensus should be made on the effects of geoengineering on human health.
Cool, but how can you trust Wikipedia without verifying the information on independent web sites?
So, you trust WIKI well enough to post it as a source when you think it agrees with you, but you don't trust it when it reports the fact (fairly easily checked by looking at the other sources) that 8 cttees looked into this story and found nothing.It's not WIKI that "found nothing", it's those 8 groups. Here's a list The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US)Do you realise how dumb that looks?
Cool, but how can you trust Wikipedia without verifying the information on independent web sites?Do you really think Wikipedia holds absolute control over the validity of a scientific theory?
Um... you realize that you are the one who posted the link to Wikipedia, right? Why post a link that you don't trust?
Suppose I was testing you.
How would you react if you learned that Wikipedia is being regulated by a semi-autonomous autocratic entity?
Why is the public disclosure of geoengineering activity still not understood by the scientific community?
If you trust Wikipedia as a holy source of information,
Because there's no good evidence that such geoengineering activity even exists.
The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.
Because solar geoengineering doesnt exist it is impossible for it to go anywhere or for anyone to understand how it works.
Injecting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere is the proposed solar radiation management method that has received the most sustained attention. This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[35] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2, which is a common benchmark for assessing future climate scenarios. Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosols for climate engineering, since there is a good natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, which form sulfate aerosol and cool the planet. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titaniun dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[36][37][38] Delivery could be achieved using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[39][40][41] Broadly speaking, stratospheric aerosol injection is seen as a relatively more credible climate engineering technique[by whom?], although one with potential major risks and challenges for its implementation. Risks include changes in precipitation and, in the case of sulfur, possible ozone depletion.
Scientists have the duty to properly educate the general public about science, not the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosols
This is the general misconception that the scientific community must absolutely resolve. The science of solar geoengineering will not go away simply because very few peoples understand how it actually works.
Scientists have the duty to properly educate the general public about science, not the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation_management#Stratospheric_aerosolsQuoteInjecting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere is the proposed solar radiation management method that has received the most sustained attention. This technique could give much more than 3.7 W/m2 of globally averaged negative forcing,[35] which is sufficient to entirely offset the warming caused by a doubling of CO2, which is a common benchmark for assessing future climate scenarios. Sulfates are the most commonly proposed aerosols for climate engineering, since there is a good natural analogue with (and evidence from) volcanic eruptions. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject large amounts of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, which form sulfate aerosol and cool the planet. Alternative materials such as using photophoretic particles, titaniun dioxide, and diamond have been proposed.[36][37][38] Delivery could be achieved using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons.[39][40][41] Broadly speaking, stratospheric aerosol injection is seen as a relatively more credible climate engineering technique[by whom?], although one with potential major risks and challenges for its implementation. Risks include changes in precipitation and, in the case of sulfur, possible ozone depletion.