Stuff that spread in the atmosphere to scatter sunlight will also scatter starlight. I can't imagine a single astronomer that would approve of this plan, even if AGW was a problem, which seems less likely as more is known about errors in climate research.

Indeed, a recent study showed that the more scientifically literate a person is, the less likely that person is to believe in AGW hype:

"...higher degrees of science literacy and numeracy are associated with a small decrease in the perceived seriousness of climate change risks."

From http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html

Sounds almost crazy enough to be a good idea. I think we would have to be in a very bad way to actually go ahead and do it, simply because the risks are too high. Supposing it didn't work out? Supposing the effects on the weather were deleterious to life on earth. Putting the titanium dioxide up there may be a lot easier than getting it all down again.

I've heard of "pie in the sky" ideas, but this qualifies as "Ti in the sky."

Is this the same crazy scheme that would actually trap more heat in causing increased global temperatures creating far more problems than it would solve and potentially destroying the delicate cycle of life on earth resulting in the extinction of life as we know it?

Sure, if it helps my tan!

Yeah and if you read the comments than some people thought ahead of what impact this has for atmosphere, ocean and humans.

The idea that it is safe is so far fetched that it is almost scary in what way we want to tackle "Global warming".

We need to blame the ongoing propaganda for stupid things like this.

Take a global action and blow the planet completly.

My a..e

NYET, NE NADA, NOTHING, NEIN.

You iumped onto a false dichotomy, a false question.

The subiect is crucial, so stay with me thruot the presentation.

The right question is longer, and as follows. A number of years ago a study was made in Australia (mostly white), and it turned out, office workers were having way more melanoma, than farmers.

The result was unacceptable, repeated, the same,?!?

Well, it turns out, that vitamin D3 has a main function in some 350 enzymatic function, that we know of today. Vitamin D3 is produced in your skin from cholesterol by sunshine. If you are a beachbhbum or a guard. (Zinc or any other oxide has not the least to do with it, except to protect inane theories).

You get enough, you are healthy. Substandard, you are so, too.

As far as philosophy concerns, I rather subscribe to Craig Venter's thinking, than any other's. That is the guy -never mind - look up in Wikipedia.

best regards

The findings of most studies of melanoma have been inconclusive....My recommendation of sunscreen is to avoid sunburn, a proven benefit...This thread is about a plan to reverse global warming though...comical though it may be....

Nice recent talk here by Craig Venter...I actually had my DNA sequenced and personalized vitamins formulated based on my genetic predispositions, so you see, I too am a believer....I also recommended that the genetic profile be included with clinical trial results to further characterize which drugs were effective against which conditions in certain genetic types and which were problematic, some 12 years ago....I'm sure we are all aware that some drugs work well with some people in treating certain conditions while some people have a toxic reaction to the same drug, I believe that the key to these anomalies may lie in the genetic code variations as well as other factors....We will not have satisfactory and consistent results until we know what triggers certain reactions in some and not in others....while I suspect that it is a combination of many different things, certainly the genetic profile is a key piece of this puzzle....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAU6ObEJHaE

Ah, that sunscreen.

Way back when the famous physicist Freeman Dyson dismissed it as a nonproblem. Add a ton of very finely ground titanium dioxid to every airliner, and disperse it in the same fashion, as airshow smoke trails are done. This will reduce insolation on the ground by 1-2(3)%, if it is ever needed. But he did not believe, it will be needed at all.

Well then, what do you make of these findings, that suggest to me at least, that airplane contrails contribute significantly to global warming....

"

Contrails and climate

Contrails, by affecting the Earth's radiation balance, act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). Global radiative forcing has been calculated from the reanalysis data, climatological models and radiative transfer codes. It is estimated to amount to 0.012 W/m² for 2005, with an uncertainty range of 0.005 to 0.0026 W/m², and with a low level of scientific understanding.^[4] Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect.^[5] However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the magnitude of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing. Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.^[6]

[edit]September 11, 2001 climate impact study

The grounding of planes for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided a rare opportunity for scientists to study the effects of contrails on climate forcing. Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before;^[7] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.^[8]

Condensation trails have been suspected of causing "regional-scale surface temperature" changes for some time.^[9][10] Researcher David J. Travis, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, has published and spoken on the measurable impacts of contrails on climate change in the science journal Nature and at the American Meteorological Society's 10th Annual conference in Portland, Oregon. The effect of the change in aircraft contrail formation on the three days after the 11th was observed in surface temperature change, measured across over 4,000 reporting stations in the continental United States.^[9] Travis' research documented an "anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature change".^[9] The diurnal temperature range (DTR) is the difference in the day's highs and lows at any weather reporting station.^[11] Travis observed a 1.8 °C (3.24 °F) departure from the two adjacent three-day periods to the 11th-14th.^[9] This increase was the largest recorded in 30 years, more than "2 standard deviations away from the mean DTR".^[9]"

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail}

"Moving flight times from night to day could reduce air travel's contributions to global warming, a new study suggests."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060614-contrails.html

"The white, cloudlike trails left in the wake of high-altitude jets are warming the earth more than the planes' carbon-dioxide emissions, a new study suggests. Although some so-called contrails, which are simply clouds of tiny ice crystals condensed from the moisture in aircraft exhaust, evaporate quickly, many linger for hours and spread across the sky. A new model that can estimate the formation and persistence of contrails suggests that as much as 6% of eastern North America can be covered with these humanmade clouds. In central Europe, coverage can reach 10%, researchers report today in Nature Climate Change. Just like natural cirrus clouds, contrails block infrared radiation emitted from Earth's surface, and the increased coverage provided by contrails boosts cloud-induced warming. On a worldwide average, contrail-induced cloudiness traps an extra 31 milliwatts of energy per square meter. Previous analyses suggest that the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the beginning of the jet age traps 28 milliwatts per square meter. "

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/03/scienceshot-jet-contrails-a-big.html

Here is another one of those!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531112614.htm

Thats where we end up being now, vast studies on how to tackle a warming that is not there in the first place. If we really proceed down that path we at least are wasting a lot of resources on much more needed studies and we run into danger of making global experiments with possible disastrous consequences.

Good night Earth, we loved your blue sky! I hope this is not the end!

It is always amazing watching science spinning wheels in obtuse minutiae, while missing the obvious by a country mile.

The Earth is hit by the Sun by over a kilowatt, of which some 300 watts/m² is effective at ground level. By the standard Freeman Dyson agreed to look at, 1, 2, 3% might make a difference. That would be 10, 20, 30 Watts/m², to be of any significance. For practical life, and engineering, that is. Hence, the contrail discussion is plain pixie dust. Pretty, but that's all.

The very fine titanium dioxid powder is designed to stay aloft for a long time, and reflect back to space 1-3% of the radiation. Remember, Dyson did not believe it would be needed at all.

Sorry to put it to you this way: When I have to choose between a resident of Einsteins institute in Princeton, or an itinerant writer's opinion, I hardly can fail to go with Einstein's company. And all of that does not even include my assessments. As a practicing engineer, it takes quite a lot to impress, even if I say it so myself.

Sorry you seem to have some idea that I'm trying to sell you something....that is incorrect...

Ok just to throw another monkey wrench in the mix, here we have new evidence that global warming may be caused by rapid planetary cooling, that's right the Earth is cooling through thermal conduction of heat from internal planet sources, at a rate in excess of what was thought before...This thermal heat being trapped by jet contrails warming the atmosphere trapping more moisture, bingo, air moisture is the number one cause of global warming....of course we can't say that jet contrails are 100% responsible for trapping heat, but they do appear to be a contributor...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/science/earths-core-the-enigma-1800-miles-below-us.html

Earth's internal heat....

"Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is estimated at 44.2 TW (4.42 × 10¹³ watts).^[12] Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m² over continental crust and 101 mW/m² over oceanic crust.^[12] This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.^[13] The Earth's crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents.^[12][14]

The heat of the earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW.^[15] The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient