Solar Radiation Management Science 2015 - University of Cambridge

Here is a very long video, but a very good bit of information on SRM.

If you do watch this, please be sure to pay attention that nobody make any claims that this IS HAPPENING, but rather they are studying all the aspects of it. I personally don't like the idea at all, due to all the unknown aspects, but admit there is a lot to learn and discuss.

Please note, SRM is modeled after volcanic eruptions, and the plans are to deploy the particles in the stratosphere, which is much higher than normal planes fly, and well above the area that contrails form. So should SRM become a reality, it is likely you would not be able to see it from the ground at all.

This is the main reason chemtrails don't belong in this discussion.

originally posted by: network dude


Please note, SRM is modeled after volcanic eruptions, and the plans are to deploy the particles in the stratosphere, which is much higher than normal planes fly, and well above the area that contrails form. So should SRM become a reality, it is likely you would not be able to see it from the ground at all.

This is the main reason chemtrails don't belong in this discussion.

Well that doesn't make any sense.

You just admitted the technology exists to disperse aerosols in a way in which it wouldn't be visible to people on the ground.

Why does this in any way negate "chemtrails" or are you wishing to shape this term to only apply to commercial airliners, or something?

Let's roll with something for the sake of discussion. That this word "chemtrails" is used much like the invention of the word "conspiracy theory" by the CIA decades prior, as a means to discredit true operations that are happening, and sway the discussion more towards the extreme.

I'll roll with that, and say let's not use the word "chemtrails" here, but agree that SRM type operation could already be well underway unknown to the public. Would you agree with that?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

SRM could very well be going on now, and may haven been happening for the last 50 years. And yes, we would have no idea.
What we do have is the very people who came up with this idea, are the ones discussing it in videos like the one I presented.

Now, if you care to actually look into "chemtrails", you find that they are all about the white lines that form behind planes. The original claim is that contrails only last a few seconds to a few minutes, and quickly dissipate. Only a chemtrail can last for hours and spread out into cirrus clouds.

Of course, the science that any who care to study it, fully explains contrails, persistent contrails, and how they can and do last and spread into cirrus cloud when conditions are correct.

The whole chemtrail theory has confused this issue to the point we have forums like this, where both ideas are presented as one, when they are apples and unicorns in reality. But since this isn't my site, I don't have a say in it.

Please let me know what you think, and if you wish to dispute anything I say, please offer reputable links to back up your claims. I will do my best to offer that on my end.

a reply to: network dude

If SRM had been going on for the last 50 years, the planet would be cooling, not warming.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

If SRM had been going on for the last 50 years, the planet would be cooling, not warming.

How about if it's only been going on for the last 20, 15, or maybe just 10 years?

Kinda makes the claims that GE SRM is occurring, a la Wigington and others seem rather silly, no?

a reply to: Kali74

Except no, because it's not black and white, and it matters to the degree of each effect interacting over time.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

You really should explain that response.

It seems to be a defensive non-response.

Even if it had been going on in just the last 5 years, we would be seeing an effect of cooling. We're not. Think about it. If scientists were trying to test the theory, they would be trying to mimic volcanic placement of sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere, it would have to be enough for them to gain a measurable effect... otherwise what's the point.

Back in the early 90's Mt. Pinatubo erupted and caused the largest known SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) cloud... later that year another volcano erupted. The combination of both once dissipated over the entire atmosphere caused about a 1C drop in global temperatures over 2 years.

SO2 has a rapid and intense effect once it reaches the upper atmosphere.

Not to mention the fact that earth's atmosphere is monitored very closely, daily... by multiple sources. A sudden inexplicable increase in SO2 would be pretty hard to hide and would require thousands of atmospheric scientists to be in on the conspiracy... just no.

a reply to: Kali74
Could you clarify something for me please? Do you think you're disagreeing with me, or somehow correcting me? It seems that way to me.

a reply to: Aliensun

Which response? The one to Kali? Her assertion makes no damned sense whatsoever.

There's assumptions built into it. First, a decline compared to what, and at what point? Second, would you not adjust based on goals over time? To make a blanket statement like hers is just nonsense.

Imagine where you would be willing to take measures 50 years ago, because public response was too slow, and yet you still needed to baby step them into the correct choices over time.

Imagine your overshoot, because this wasn't and still isn't an exact science, and you did cause cooling, and that was against your goals, so you had to readjust to keep the temperature rising, but in a controlled manor.

Lines up pretty well.

There's far too many scenario's and unknowns to be making blanket statements. All we can do is speculate.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I'm sorry, I wasn't paying close enough attention to your last line. You are correct, it is silly.

I've edited my post so that it's not a reply to you.

a reply to: Kali74

While everything you say is correct regarding this subject, you do see that we are on the same side of this right?

I don't believe that SRM is currently taking place, but I do feel that the chemtrail theory has severely hampered logical discussion on this very subject.

Most who frequent this forum to post pictures of "heavy spray days", have little to no idea about the things you just mentioned. Which is really sad.

But thanks very much for the post and please keep them coming. We can't have too much information on this subject.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Aliensun

Which response? The one to Kali? Her assertion makes no damned sense whatsoever.

There's assumptions built into it. First, a decline compared to what, and at what point? Second, would you not adjust based on goals over time? To make a blanket statement like hers is just nonsense.

Imagine where you would be willing to take measures 50 years ago, because public response was too slow, and yet you still needed to baby step them into the correct choices over time.

Imagine your overshoot, because this wasn't and still isn't an exact science, and you did cause cooling, and that was against your goals, so you had to readjust to keep the temperature rising, but in a controlled manor.

Lines up pretty well.

There's far too many scenario's and unknowns to be making blanket statements. All we can do is speculate.

Great, now look at your post. If you have to "imagine" in order to project your ideas, then there is a good chance they are just ideas. No?

If you have something that points to SRM actively taking place, it NEEDS to be addressed, not hidden. But if you have speculation, please be sure to present it as such, so you don't get the flag wavers to pile on and make a mess of this thread.

originally posted by: Kali74

Not to mention the fact that earth's atmosphere is monitored very closely, daily... by multiple sources. A sudden inexplicable increase in SO2 would be pretty hard to hide and would require thousands of atmospheric scientists to be in on the conspiracy... just no.

And its a damn shame people don't comprehend that fact. If something was to be introduced, it would be noticed and discussed almost immediately.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yes... clearly I'm the one not making sense. It's silly to think that particles behave in certain ways and not the way in which we feel they should to conform to conspiracy theories.

a reply to: network dude

I've made it quite clear that all responses in this thread are likely to be speculation at best. My posts will be no different. At any point in the act of creation, imagination is necessary. If it is contained to my mind, so be it, but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Even Kali's response about S04 and scientists measuring daily shows a lack of imagination. Why does make sense in her mind that our high minds would stick with nature, and not deviate? Athletes switch cocktails of PE's to avoid being outed, airplanes take cues from birds yet deviate, why stick with something that could be as good as, and yet not work? Meh, lack of imagination.

a reply to: network dude

It's rather a reverse Conspiracy I think. But I'm not going to derail your thread, your premise is important.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yes... clearly I'm the one not making sense. It's silly to think that particles behave in certain ways and not the way in which we feel they should to conform to conspiracy theories.

Great. So we are further assured you're not making the slightest bit of sense. Thanks for the clarification.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: network dude

I've made it quite clear that all responses in this thread are likely to be speculation at best. My posts will be no different. At any point in the act of creation, imagination is necessary. If it is contained to my mind, so be it, but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Even Kali's response about S04 and scientists measuring daily shows a lack of imagination. Why does make sense in her mind that our high minds would stick with nature, and not deviate? Athletes switch cocktails of PE's to avoid being outed, airplanes take cues from birds yet deviate, why stick with something that could be as good as, and yet not work? Meh, lack of imagination.

The difference here is, that unlike conspiracy world, there is the place called "the real world", and that is where I reside.

I care about things like the planet, and how we use/destroy it. But I will not just accept anyone's idea because it sounds like something right up my alley. I learned to look for facts to back up the story. If no facts exist, then guess what? the story is made up.

If you are one who looks at a pie tin on a bit of fishing line, and can call it a 'good UFO picture', then great, but others here will point out the string, and alert others to the false claims. This is what continues to happen with chemtrails.

In reality, you MUST disregard facts and science in order to believe it's true. Don't believe me? I can prove it.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: network dude

It's rather a reverse Conspiracy I think. But I'm not going to derail your thread, your premise is important.

No derail noticed. You opinion is just as welcome as any. (even if you haven't switched to the "right" side yet)