[Bored chemist]

Because there's no good evidence that such geoengineering activity even exists.

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.

How did you come to the conclusion that you are right and the whole scientific community is wrong?

Just how weirdly deludeed do you have to be to think that way?

[Ophiolite]

I would like to know if scientific misconduct in geoengineering and climatic research may contribute to the negative public perception of this emerging field.

What do you think?

   

I think the honest thing would have been to open the thread with what became your fourth post. Concealing an agenda is discourteous, foolish and somewhat obvious.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I see a lot of assertions, but no evidence. Do you have any evidence, or should we just take your word for it?

[smart (OP)]

Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering. I'm guessing science in America has become a swamp of corrupted scientists.

[Kryptid]

Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering. I'm guessing science in America has become a swamp of corrupted scientists.

That depends very much on what you mean by "recognize". Of course most scientists recognize that it is possible, in theory, to modify the climate using particular techniques. That is a very different form of recognition than thinking that climate modification is currently taking place in secret.

[Bored chemist]

Seriously, it is a shame that very few scientists are willing to recognize the science of solar geoengineering.

No.
It's good news that scientists are no willing to recognise  things for which there is no evidence.
If they did that they wouldn't be scientists.
It's a different matter entirely to speculate about how e might geoengineer the planet.
There are scientists who do that. It's a difficult subject simply because the science shows that we accidentally geoengineered the planet and we don't want to risk making the same mistake twice.

[smart (OP)]

No.
It's good news that scientists are no willing to recognise  things for which there is no evidence.
If they did that they wouldn't be scientists.
It's a different matter entirely to speculate about how e might geoengineer the planet.
There are scientists who do that. It's a difficult subject simply because the science shows that we accidentally geoengineered the planet and we don't want to risk making the same mistake twice.

Good answer @Bored chemist

congratulations.

but please tell me now however whom you fighting for.

[Bored chemist]

but please tell me now however who you fighting for.

I'm "fighting" on behalf of the people who come to a science web page expecting to find evidence based science rather than conspiracy nonsense.

Why are you not on the same side?

(BTW, it should be "whom are you fighting for?", but I guess that's a lost cause).

[smart (OP)]

I'm "fighting" on behalf of the people who come to a science web page expecting to find evidence based science rather than conspiracy nonsense.

Why are you not on the same side?

(BTW, it should be "whom are you fighting for?", but I guess that's a lost cause).

Sorry, my english is sometimes buggy and error-prone...

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense. You have to really consider what others people are telling you and stop acting like an elite covering up this rogue activity. If you're fighting for science, then you must investigate and think without influence from any political positions...
 
 

[Bored chemist]

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.

For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.

[Kryptid]

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.

A claim yet to be supported.

You have to really consider what others people are telling you

Which would be irrational if the people who are telling us this cannot support their assertions with evidence.

and stop acting like an elite covering up this rogue activity.

If being rational makes one an "elite" then we should all strive to be one.

If you're fighting for science, then you must investigate and think without influence from any political positions...

It's not politics, but rather rationality, that has driven us to our conclusions on this matter.

[smart (OP)]

I guess my next question should be "How deep does science has really sunken in America" ?

[Bored chemist]

I guess my next question should be "How deep does science has really sunken in America" ?

Don't worry, most of the world isn't in America, the other 96% of us are doing OK.
A better question would be "why does Tkadm30 keep posting stuff as if it's a fact , even though there's no evidence for it?"

What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?

[smart (OP)]

What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?

Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.

[Bored chemist]

What evidence do you think you have that clandestine geoengineering (on any meaningful scale) actually exists?

Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.

I'm not fighting it.
I'm asking for evidence.

Since I am offering you an opportunity to point out the evidence I am not fighting against you proving your point.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence.
Why don't you do so?

If anything, your refusal to cite any backup to your assertion undermines the idea that it is valid.
Do you not understand that?

[Kryptid]

Your obsession to fight this is evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up rogue geoengineering activity.

You might as well be saying that:
 
-People who fight David Icke's claims are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up the fact that reptilian shape-shifters are secretly ruling the world.

-People who fight the Flat Earth Society are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up knowledge that the Earth is flat.

-People who fight the creationism movement are evidence of a large-scale disinformation/cognitive infiltration system operating to cover up proof that evolution is wrong and that the Earth is young.

[smart (OP)]

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.

For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.

Tell me something i don't know.

[syhprum]

If you really wanted to add sulphurous aerosols to the atmosphere the easiest and cheapest way to do it would be to allow shipping to burn low grade diesel fuel contaminated with sulphur.   

[Bored chemist]

Clandestine solar geoengineering is no conspiracy nonsense.

For the umpteenth time; prove it, or shut up about it.

Tell me something i don't know.

Apparently, you don't know that you are expected to back up assertions with evidence.

[smart (OP)]

A technically correct term to define solar geoengineering activity is aerosol radiative forcing.

[puppypower]

Geo-Engineering is not popular with the consensus weather science community, since any solution or perceived solution to the problem of global warming, is not politically or financially, advantageous. Big bucks for the consensus wether science depends on the perception of future climate disasters. If we had a new way to resolve this future, the priorities may change. There is better political mileage hoping for new and improved natural disasters, so you can point the finger, and use that to make a political statement to leverage funds.

For example, the school shooting in Florida, that is in the news, became an opportunity for the left to place gun control on center stage, even ahead of the suffering of the students. It is not a solemn moment but a way to leverage a POV. This is how the left works; take advantage of disasters to promote causes. In terms of climate change and geo-engineering, geo-engineering would theoretically mitigate global warming disasters. This gets in the way of the disasters needed for political purposes.

Those on the right, don't see geo-engineering the same way. They are concerned with public safety, and look for practical solutions.  However, they have not fully bought into the manmade premise. To the right, geo-engineering it is more like someone, setting up a Big Foot trap. This makes full sense if you buy into big foot. But if you do not buy into big foot, it seems like blue sky research than is better funded in times of property. To the right geo-engineering  is not threatening, but we have other priorities. If the private sectors wishes to do this blue sky research, this is OK. If anything it will get under the claw of the left, and mess up their sales doom and gloom pitch.

In terms of atmospheric aerosols, the majority of the aerosols are actually produced naturally. This includes dust in the wind, water droplet in clouds, smoke from forest fires, etc.. Humans contribute about 20% more to this total, based on auto exhaust, factory smoke, and other such things. Geo-engineering is possible, but it would need huge amounts of materials to even make a dent. This is where costs go way up. How do you put mega tons of material in the atmosphere? These high costs, would cut into the manmade climate industries budget, since it counters the fear, at the level of conceptual modeling.

What was interesting is, the cars of old; 1960's and earlier, not only produced carbon as CO2 and CO, but also lots of smoky aerosols. These aerosols helped to counter the impact of the CO2 greenhouse mechanism. It was not until the left tinkered with this balance; smog control, did CO2 gain ascendency over the manmade aerosol balance in cars. The right knows how the left screws things up, to make worse problems, under the guise of doing good.  The right will hesitate to support anything that left comes up with, that leads to new series of disasters used for political purposes. The left screws up nukes, which would have solved the CO2 global problem 30 years ago. If geo-engineering was bad the left would be all over it.