> It sounds scary, but is actually safe Posted by the account, BurningFrog. You can't make this shit up. Forgive me if I do not take "making sunsets" as a cre

> It sounds scary, but is actually safe Posted by the account, BurningFrog. You can't make this shit up. Forgive me if I do not take "making sunsets" as a credible source of information. There's a body of research that covers existential risks associated with sai and srm: - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016328717301131 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00163... - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.720312/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.338... - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000735 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF00... Further from an actual credible source: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modification-research-deployment https://www.unep.org/resources/report/Solar-Radiation-Modifi... > While there is a growing body of literature and advanced modelling on the topic, which has been developing for many years, there is very little evidence or research on the risks and impacts of SRM. The report outlines these limitations in the evidence base. UNEP is concerned that while the scientific literature shows that SRM, and stratospheric aerosol injection specifically, can cool the globe, there is a dearth of data on the risks and impacts. For technologies that can alter the chemistry of the stratosphere, the world needs much more information to support decision-making. No, it is not "safe" by any measure.