Climate Engineering: It’s Dangers By Chris Knight (Florida)

Solar radiation management refers to strategies to geoengineer the climate to result in a reflection of some of the sun’s energy back into space.  This idea is getting increasing acceptance by bodies of climate scientists who take on the climatic doomsday scenario, that present polices will not stop alleged global warming.

Of course, they all assume that such warming is occurring, and that now that is a paradigm belief that is not questioned. But, even so, within their paradigm, given their assumptions, there are grave concerns by many scientists about the dangers of playing God with the climate. Scientific American, quoted below, has given a concise summary, and that includes: “It could noticeably whiten our blue sky. It could weaken the stratospheric ozone layer that protects us and Earth's biosphere from ultraviolet radiation. It might change weather patterns and move the monsoons that water crops for billions of people. And it wouldn't do anything to remedy other CO₂-related problems such as ocean acidification, which is harming the ability of corals, shellfish and some plankton to form skeletons and shells.”

These seem overwhelming reasons to me to keep well away from geoengineering the climate. Weakening the ozone layer would be far worse than so-called global warming. And if there is an alteration of rain patterns in Asia, it could trigger a nuclear war, if China faced mass starvation because of crop failure. Thus, it is too dangerous to do, but programs are underway to put this in motion. Talk about Dr Frankensteins!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-engineer-the-sky/

“Many people recoil at the notion of solar geoengineering, or solar radiation management (SRM), as it's often called. The idea that humans should try to fix the atmosphere they've messed up by messing with it some more seems fraught with peril—an act of Faustian arrogance certain to backfire. But as it becomes clear that humans are unlikely to reduce emissions quickly enough to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, some scientists say SRM might be less scary than allowing warming to continue unabated. Proposals for cooling the planet are becoming more concrete even as the debate over them grows increasingly rancorous.

SRM replicates a natural phenomenon created by large volcanic eruptions. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it blasted 20 million tons of SO₂ into the stratosphere, creating an “aerosol parasol” that cooled the planet by about 0.5 degree C over the next year or so before the droplets settled back to Earth. Studies suggest that if SRM were deployed at sufficient scale—maybe one quarter of a Pinatubo eruption every year, enough to block 1 or 2 percent of sunlight—it could slow warming and even cool the planet a bit. Its effects would be felt within months, and it would cost only a few billion dollars annually. In comparison, transitioning away from fossil fuels is expected to take decades, and the CO₂ emitted until then could make warming worse. Using machines to remove billions of tons of CO₂ from the skies, a process called direct-air capture, could slow warming but would be fighting itself—the machines might increase the world's energy consumption by up to 25 percent, potentially creating more greenhouse gas emissions. Because SRM could produce effects quickly, it has political appeal. It's “the only thing political leaders can do that would have a discernible influence on temperature within their term in office,” says Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist emeritus at the Carnegie Institution for Science, who is also a senior scientist at Breakthrough Energy, an organization founded by Bill Gates.

Caldeira and others say SRM should be pursued with extreme caution—if at all. It could noticeably whiten our blue sky. It could weaken the stratospheric ozone layer that protects us and Earth's biosphere from ultraviolet radiation. It might change weather patterns and move the monsoons that water crops for billions of people. And it wouldn't do anything to remedy other CO₂-related problems such as ocean acidification, which is harming the ability of corals, shellfish and some plankton to form skeletons and shells.

Critics also say that the very idea of an escape hatch such as SRM could undermine support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Like a prescription drug, if SRM were used responsibly—temporarily and in small doses—it could be beneficial, easing what is likely to be a dangerously hot century or two and buying humanity some extra time to transition to renewable energy. But it also has potential for abuse. At higher doses it could increasingly distort the climate, altering weather patterns in ways that pit nation against nation, possibly leading to war.

For all these reasons, more than 400 scientists have signed an open letter urging governments to adopt a worldwide ban on SRM experiments. But other scientists are proceeding, if reluctantly. “All the scientists I know who are working on this—none of them want to be working on it,” says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University. Robock, who previously showed the world how a nuclear winter could shroud Earth, studies SRM out of a sense of obligation. “If somebody's tempted to do this in the future,” he says, they “should know what the consequences would be.”