Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

Solar Radiation Management or S.R.M. is a basket of methods and application of technology with one purpose in mind for the end result. It's all about man-induced global cooling by either limiting the solar radiation to reach the planet's surface in the first place, or to reflect what does reach it to the degree man can attempt it.

Much of this is experimental for active technology vs. the white roofs and lighter color ground covering which is in various degrees of deployment around the world. Active methods carry some risk, in my opinion, and that risk is in deliberately forcing a change that could not and would not have occurred otherwise.

If we're right? Then the methods used may well save us in the long term future.

If we're not right about ultimate trends and patterns between warmth and cooling? Then we'll usher in the very catastrophe the best minds are working to prevent here.

My faith in authority is not strong and is not up to the task of taking on word that they DO know the full ramifications.

However, that is an opinion based on nothing more than 40 meandering years of living on this rock and observing how often 'experts' don't know as much as they assumed they did ....usually learning that at the worst moments and most inopportune ways.

So what IS Solar Radiation Management anyway? In another thread I did a lengthy analysis of a United Nations conference in Lima Peru. At that conference, SRM was one of several approaches discussed to different degrees of detail. Here, I look only at SRM. First.... Some definitions.

SRM is not a single technology; rather, it is a family of possible technologies. Below are examples of prominent SRM concepts, but it is important to note that other proposals do exist, and many experts believe that we have barely begun to explore the full range of possible methods of global cooling through SRM:

Atmospheric Aerosol Injection: Strategy entails the injection of small volumes of matter (generally sulfur-based aerosol particles) into the stratosphere so as to scatter back into space a fraction of the solar radiation that otherwise would have reached Earth, thereby decreasing global mean temperatures.

Cloud Whitening: Strategy entails the spraying of seawater droplets into low-level marine clouds so as to increase cloud albedo and longevity, thereby creating a cooling effect.

Space-Based Solar Radiation Management: Strategy entails the creation of solar shields or reflective mirrors to be situated in space so as to deflect a portion of the solar radiation otherwise directed towards Earth, thereby cooling the planet.

Source: American Enterprise Institute

The article goes on to mention two additional methods that include Air Capture of Carbon as well as seeding the Oceans to alter their natural balance (or skewed balance, depending on how it's viewed) to make them more conducive to functioning to improve our climate situation.

In terms of clarity to what we mean when we say Stratosphere, I looked up that term for this as well. On the US National Weather Service/NOAA Website, they describe it as this:

Stratosphere
The Stratosphere extends around 31 miles (50 km) down to anywhere from 4 to 12 miles (6 to 20 km) above the Earth's surface. This layer holds 19 percent of the atmosphere's gases but very little water vapor.

In this region the temperature increases with height. Heat is produced in the process of the formation of Ozone and this heat is responsible for temperature increases from an average -60°F (-51°C) at tropopause to a maximum of about 5°F (-15°C) at the top of the stratosphere.

This increase in temperature with height means warmer air is located above cooler air. This prevents "convection" as there is no upward vertical movement of the gases. As such the location of the bottom of this layer is readily seen by the 'anvil-shaped' tops of cumulonimbus clouds.

NWS/NOAA

4 miles is 21,260 feet in terms of how fluid and variable those boundaries are in the discussions which use them as areas of the air column to inject or otherwise modify for climate mitigation strategy. The area of atmosphere being examined for these methods is a very large slice, to say the least.

In the first article and example of the SRM technology we see the discussion of particulate being deliberately injected into the air above us for the purpose of mitigation.

As noted by others, it's also critical to point out that this isn't a new concept. In fact, it's designed and intended to augment and greatly increase a natural process which is lacking the density of material (during normal times) in the atmosphere to accomplish the desired result

Cont...

Continued.....

In talking about particulate and what is there, as well as how it came to be there? The US E.P.A. puts it this way, in their glossary of terms:

Sulfate Aerosols
Particulate matter that consists of compounds of sulfur formed by the interaction of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide with other compounds in the atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols are injected into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels and the eruption of volcanoes like Mt. Pinatubo. Sulfate aerosols can lower the Earth's temperature by reflecting away solar radiation (negative radiative forcing). General Circulation Models which incorporate the effects of sulfate aerosols more accurately predict global temperature variations. See particulate matter, aerosol, General Circulation Models. [3]

US EPA

This is a process the world has seen before and in dramatic fashion. When the Island volcano of Krakatoa blew itself into history, the shockwave traveled the planet multiple times. It was heard over clear out in Australia and is thought of as the loudest noise ever heard or recorded by man.

The Skies Change

In the weeks following the eruption, fine fragments of tephra and dust that were propelled kilometers into the stratosphere began to make a ring around the equator. They would remain suspended there for years causing remarkable solar effects and atmospheric hazing as they bent the incoming light. Also the enormous volumes of sulfur dioxide gas molecules that were ejected into the atmosphere combined with water to make sulfuric acid. These acidic aerosols sufficiently blocked enough sunlight to drop the Earth's temperature by several degrees for a few years.

Source: Physical Geology - Krakatoa Eruption

Highlighted here is the natural process the eruption triggered and what some approaches to SRM seek to imitate or duplicate through atmospheric manipulation and balance.

Is spraying (injecting) anything into the atmosphere a good idea? Is it a bridge too far in what they seek to accomplish or is this, itself, bordering on too little and too late?

More to the point of how this impacts the forum overall? What might the injection of both particulate into layers of the stratosphere or dispersal of liquid in "cloud whitening" look like exactly?

Perhaps a better question....do we need wonder or is it possible some have already seen prototype and experimental viability studies being conducted with real aircraft?


Now every good thread needs at least a LITTLE eye candy in my view. It's what we expect and best understand in many scientific concepts. So, not one to disappoint, I've come with a bit of eye candy to add as well.



The first one here is an overall graphic depiction of SRM and overall climate mitigation efforts as they may play out in 3 dimensional space. It's an interesting look and suggests a bit how they may well interact to make the different methods either more or less effective by that interaction. I wonder if enough real world testing has been done for what is being discussed to know with confidence, which side of benefit vs. challenge that may come on?



I include this second one as an interesting view of how broadly the layers of the atmosphere are depicted. As we learned by the NWS/NOAA definitions (and NASA has similar material we've seen posted before as well), the Stratosphere layer can start as low as just over 21,000 feet or, in other conditions, much much higher. (It's generally quite a bit higher, to be realistic)

Again, it's a fluid layer as the atmosphere itself is a very dynamic system in a constant state of change from one moment to the next.

I do hope that when active measures are the order of the day for efforts to be taken, the certainty is well beyond the level I find it's at now. There is as much speculation in things like the IPCC/UN conferences as there are declarations of fact. At least where mitigation methods are concerned and how injecting new matter into the atmosphere may be accomplished to what end result.



** I also need to note that I am more or less on a vacation right now, so I'm checking in once a day on average and only for a short time. Vacation means doing what I love to do though, and writing informational pieces is among my true enjoyments in life. So, forgive me if I may not reply in my usual time and manner. It may take a day to get back on anything specific.

Control over our environment has been the cause of the problem so MORE CONTROL must be the answer.

Well, the earth did rather well for millions of years without the need for our "Management".

I'm sure someone will say "But look what we've done to the earth". But they forget that once upon a time the earth was much more active with volcano's popping all over the place, pumping out gases in a way that we humans could never match, and darkening the skies with the ash, and yet the world continued, and it turned into the amazing world we have today, and it did all that without needing our help.

The only real damage we've done that should be corrected is the deforestation...oh, and the fracking should be stopped!

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I am reading your thread now and It will take me some time to comprehend because I'll be doing research on the topic as I read. I wanted to know if you know of Suspicious0Bserver and if you do, what's your opinion of his thesis on weather, solar or planetary.

a reply to: Antipathy17

I'm only on a short time more today but I did find two listings in the member directory that come close to that. The one matching it has no posts or threads (?). The one close but with a number added on the SN seemed to have nothing related to this. So, fear I don't know what you mean ..but I'm intrigued to look more if you can help me out a bit?

a reply to: VoidHawk

Well, the earth did rather well for millions of years without the need for our "Management".

The earth will be fine. Those living on earth not so much.

I'm sure someone will say "But look what we've done to the earth". But they forget that once upon a time the earth was much more active with volcano's popping all over the place, pumping out gases in a way that we humans could never match, and darkening the skies with the ash, and yet the world continued,

Yup your right the Earth kept going however the mass extinctions meant that many of those creatures living on earth didn't.

and it turned into the amazing world we have today, and it did all that without needing our help.

It is an amazing world alright.Hell we could set off every nuclear bomb on the planet and life will still keep on going just not our or the other 99.7% hey maybe something better will evolve out of it. Throughout earths history 99% of life has gone extinct already. I am not in any rush to join them though.

The only real damage we've done that should be corrected is the deforestation...oh, and the fracking should be stopped!

I agree about deforestation, but I am not convinced about the fracking.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000


SORRY! Forgot to mention that's his Youtube channel / website name. Real name Ben Davidson.


www.suspicious0bservers.org...

I'd like to get an idea about the thread as well. I'm fairly aware of what you posted but even though vague I am left an impression from my knowledge.

What I got from this thread is that the methods we are using/consider using are of finite science and may cause FAR more harm than good. I'd agree if my assumption is correct.

I am under the impression that solar energy and the suns energy are having more of an effect on the weather than us human but if we continue doing what we are doing because we believe we are the sole creator of our current weather, we will be headed toward disaster.

a reply to: Antipathy17

I think we generally agree on the 'more harm than good' feelings. If they have extensive, in depth and repeatable results in experiments to say that is NOT the case...not merely "we don't think it is"? I'd feel much more confident. However, that isn't what is being said or projected for confidence. It seems more a 'we MUST do SOMETHING..even if it isn't perfect!"

You know what scares me most about that, and especially when we're talking about deliberate modification to our environment?

Okay, lets say we use aerial spraying and/or injection to flood the atmosphere with particulate and it's so effective we can even measure a reduction in solar radiance in our own backyards with amateur equipment. Lets say all that works. Lets even stipulate...just for fun..at THIS moment in time, it's determined to be necessary.

What happens in 10 or 15 years when we're congratulating ourselves on an environmental mitigation well handled ....and the ring of fire pops in many places at once, or more than one of the massive Antarctic volcanos blows their top AND the ice stack above them?

All the sudden, all that great success in global cooling will be a "You did WHAT?!?!?!?" as we realize ...we've killed ourselves by good intentions as sure as if we'd jumped off a cliff to avoid a charging animal. Sure...it solves the immediate problem, but it's mighty short sighted to the NEXT problem coming up, eh?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Agreed. I think of it like Big pharma in some ways. Never enough studies to prove for or against something but they push measures through anyway... except we don't get the warning label on weather modification stating "may cause anal seepage" and the like.

Wrabbit,you put three things in your title, but only wrote about two of them?

I didn't disagree with anything you wrote in your OP, but then, you didn't mention chemtrails so there was nothing to disagree with. Were you being mischievous including them in your title? I think discussions about GE and SRM would do themselves more good if they could forget about the chemtrail silliness altogether, after all, none of the things in your OP could be mistaken for contrails, they are quite distinct, and worthy of deeper understanding and discussion without distractions from a circus sideshow, wouldn't you agree?

I think it's too risky to use SRM. The potential environmental impacts are comparable to those of global warming.

With global warming, which I am not a skeptic of, we have rising sea levels and potential tipping points which may drastically change weather patterns around the globe. The Jet & Gulf streams could significantly shift their positions with unknown effects on agriculture and other aspects of civilization. Coastal cities where most of the Earth's population is located might flood and destroy billions of dollars of infrastructure and force humanity into a global disaster.

But, the largest stated cause of global warming is man's use of fossil fuels. Something which we are actually running out of. Society can not depend on fossil fuels for much longer. Estimates are pretty grim in my opinion. The Earth has about 50 years left of uninterrupted oil production. After that prices will skyrocket and we will have to rely on more difficult means of extracting and refining oil. At the rate we use oil we have about 200 years left before all the oil on the entire planet is used up. Now in terms of civilization 200 years is not a lot of time.

Using SRM to prevent global warming has unknown and potentially very serious risks. Once these SRM strategies started on a global scale they must continue for years. They are generally 50-100 year plans of non-stop spraying. If we spray for 10 years and notice a problem stopping puts us back at square one again. Injecting these types of chemicals can create unknown health effects on people, plants, animals and the environment. It could change the PH of the oceans and the soil. Acid rain could kill trees, vegetation, fish and other sea life leading to potential famine and the death of millions by SRM induced illness and starvation.

By the time we actually know if SRM is helping or not, in about 50 years, we will be in an oil crisis. Planes won't be able to afford to fly these missions any more. The risk and reward doesn't make any sense to me. Unless our society can find a way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels we are screwed either way.

We can move away from flooded cities. We can fish and farm without fossil fuels. But if we contaminate the air we breath even more and we also alter the soil to a point where crops can't grow properly. Then we've just traded one disaster for another. Man made global warming will solve itself sooner than we can fix it with SRM.

originally posted by: waynos
Wrabbit,you put three things in your title, but only wrote about two of them?

I didn't disagree with anything you wrote in your OP, but then, you didn't mention chemtrails so there was nothing to disagree with. Were you being mischievous including them in your title? I think discussions about GE and SRM would do themselves more good if they could forget about the chemtrail silliness altogether, after all, none of the things in your OP could be mistaken for contrails, they are quite distinct, and worthy of deeper understanding and discussion without distractions from a circus sideshow, wouldn't you agree?

I may be wrong but I think he mentioned chem trails but not by using the term. As chem trails are still up in the air (yea I went there) as far as being conclusively true, we don't know the chemicals in them.

Staying away from the topic of whether it's being done now or just being studied for the future. And also staying away from the subject of what it might look like.

SRM by methods of spraying chemicals from airplanes to combat global warming would and should be considered "chemtrails".

Call it an evolution of the term for the sake of a serious discussion about SRM.

Can we please avoid the whole chentrail/contrail argument for once?

The only time I think SRM would be an acceptable risk is if the Sun were to increase it's output and we have no other choice.

EDIT:

Let me clarify, not all methods of SRM are harmful. I'm specifically referring to the atmospheric injection of chemicals technique.

Cloud whitening by sea water seems feasible. Using deserts as solar farms or reflecting areas. Not a big fan of GMO trees with reflective leaves but it's better than no trees. Space reflectors is just insane. Reflective roofing material makes a lot of sense in warm climates.

a reply to: waynos

Chemtrails as a word is a near explosive thing at times here for the "You're Crazy!" "No I'm not!" nonsense that often comes of it. This is not meant to be 'yet one more' place for both sides to yell at each other about terms and applications, tho.

I would consider any chemical or foreign material being dispersed by design from an aircraft to be, in the most literal terms, "chemicals" put in "trail" to an aircraft in-flight.

Simply put for another view, it's just a word to describe a simple physical process that is core to at least 2 methods of SRM currently under serious consideration for action.

How do you feel about SRM and it's intended or unintended outcomes? There are several other threads dedicated to the fight over what to call things.

a reply to: MagicWand67

I'd tend to agree. Cloud whitening is a temporary measure and even lightening of ground cover is or can be reversed with no problems.

Can it be so easily reversed when we're attempting to duplicate the end result of what start as catastrophic natural process? (Volcanic Eruption in one example). I seriously question that, personally. Volcanos fade for effects with time...but they are also single source contaminates of a limited duration for the actual event. Even at that, it's years in the more extreme cases.

Years is a long long time if we came to realize it was a mistake...and perhaps far longer if we do better by scale and coverage than even nature's most awesome displays are capable of.

Considering all the satellites we have out there maybe space reflectors isn't such a crazy idea.

I say we take all the space junk from satellites and build ourselves that space mirror.





/end sarcasm

a reply to: MagicWand67

Can we please avoid the whole chentrail/contrail argument for once?

That would be great! In fact, there's time left to edit this part of your post

SRM by methods of spraying chemicals from airplanes to combat global warming would and should be considered "chemtrails".

Stratospheric aerosol injection of sulfuric acid would not even be visible from the ground. 99% of all water in the atmosphere is in the troposphere. So, how about it?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The plane wouldn't be visible either at that altitude.

What's your point? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

It would still be a chemtrail. There's no way in hell you can call it a contrail that's for damn sure.