Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: MagicWand67

Umm... Wow! I don't know what to say. I've definitely never seen that report, and I'm just speechless.

Really...aside from THANK YOU ! ! ! .. I just don't know what to say. I'm about 40 pages into it after confirming who Aurora Flight Sciences is, and their credentials for being respected in the fields they're talking about and it's just a full guide to geoengineering through atmospheric dispersion of chemicals of different types.

Thanks doesn't quite do it justice for how far they drill down into details. How many 747-400's it would take, in what spreads and frequency, and how many are available (in another section) on the current world market as used planes for sale. Then down to the cents in operating, main't and labor costs to run the required numbers at the required levels of operation. I'll probably end up reading that one a couple times.



I've been focusing more on regional efforts and specifically what was intended to be countering regional climate change through SRM and various methods down to cloud seeding.

Things like the routine and nation-wide climate manipulation in China to counter the growing desertification they are undergoing. Similar things for the same reasons in Africa. It's very interesting to see just how small a world it is, and how the continents directly interact in weather systems as well as physical mass carrying between them (sand, and a lot more in some cases). It's equally interesting but more disturbing to consider such large scale efforts, intended to be local but overlapping to be much more. How much impact happens across land 'downrange' of the manipulated patterns and intended area? In a nation of regional efforts, how may some of that be feeding into each other going downrange, before impacting other land, further away?

That's ultimately what I'm trying to figure some plausible and viable answers to. I'm not a scientist, but I'm not sure someone needs to be on some of this, where researched carefully enough.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

It is indeed a very complex system for us to try and understand. Hence the need for constant monitoring of the atmosphere and to input new data into the computer models. Nearly every report I have read about computer modeling also states the need for real world field studies and that the only way the have accurate data is to create small scale attempts at climate engineering and record that data.

Despite what many skeptics say. Chaff, cloud seeding and other forms of atmospheric tracers have been used to study the relationships between clouds, aerosols, wind currents and radiative forcing. There are numerous government agencies all around the world involved and huge amounts of money being spent. Many of our most recent satellite launches have been about atmospheric studies involving this type of research.

The SRMGI is currently attempting to gain acceptance in Africa to study SRM.

As I tried to outline in one of my earlier posts. Small scale studies are unregulated and can take place without any governance. I sometimes wonder how many of the "small scale" studies are happening at the same time. And at what point does the progressive accumulation of these small scale studies amount to a large scale impact?

A little info about atmospheric tracers

NOAA air resources lab

The Atmospheric Tracer Technology, employed by the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) Field Research Division (FRD), involves a small amount of a stable, non-toxic, invisible, odorless, and easily detectable substance (known as a tracer) that is released into the air. The air in the surrounding area is then sampled and the concentration of the tracer is measured. By combining the concentrations with meteorological information, ARL scientists can develop and test theories and models of atmospheric transport and dispersion. Current capabilities include continuous analyzers, time integrated sampling, and automated tracer release mechanisms.

This is relevant because similar techniques are used with other various materials and monitoring equiptment, depending on the system being studied. Specialized forms of chaff have been used extensively in atmospheric studies. Cloud seeding uses similar techniques. The various atmospheric tracer tech is what helps with controlled real world field studies. The results are then combined with the other data to build their computer models.

source

Atmospheric Tracer Release Mechanisms
FRD has designed, built, and operated tracer release systems for a wide variety of atmospheric tracer experiments. These have included systems for SF6, perfluorocarbons, and other materials and have covered a wide range of release rates. Each system is configured to meet the specific needs of the experiment it is designed for. We have built and operated vehicle, blimp, and aircraft-mounted release systems as well as the more common stationary systems. All release systems are computer-controlled with redundant release rate measurement and control.......

FRD is a pioneer in atmospheric tracer experiments dating back to the 1960's. Our recent work has expanded to include studies important to national security and dispersion of toxic agents during a terrorist attack.

I think the Hippocratic Oath should apply to Geo-engineering: First Do No Harm.

I can see the chemtrail issue being related to experiments in geo-engineering, which is what I think you are getting at? And your research provides a strong reason for why such efforts would be taking place, even experimentally, and what might be used in the process, how it would be done, etc.

Good work! I really really like this thread.

And now for some fun:
Weather management of some kind is the future, I think, in my utopian dream world when the nations of Earth and Earthlings are all looking out for one another, there would be balance - the hurricanes tamed, the famine-bringing drought non-existent, the excessive floods impossible, and people would shudder at stories of when humankind was battered by the elements willy-nilly, when there were unmanaged earthquakes, rampaging fires and weather patterns that destroyed life and home on a whim...in those dark days people starved, horrible chemicals were dumped randomly and willfully into the waters along with mountains of trash and waste, we used primitive methods of energy production (we actually still BURNED things for fuel!) and generated so much nasty by-product from this energy production that it nearly destroyed the planet...until...Technotopia!

Yes, it is fiction, but I wonder how Geo-Engineering might help us become masters of our global environment...You know they want to do this on Mars eventually, and perhaps have bio-domes on the Moon large enough to create their own weather patterns... The science is moving in this direction in real-life.

If we don't manage to mess everything up, we might have a brighter future on the way. Hopefully the Geo-Engineers will test those ideas and models to perfection before subjecting us to their potentially dangerous down-sides.
Hopefully...

peace,
AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I can see the chemtrail issue being related to experiments in geo-engineering, which is what I think you are getting at?

It would be good to get some sort of confirmation as to what this "chemtrail issue" actually is.

There is no verifiable evidence, for example, of what are commonly thought of as chemtrails - "long-lasting trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed for sinister purposes undisclosed to the general public." - Wiki

OTOH if you want to make every chemical trail in the sky a "chemtrail" then you've got a problem - because aircraft exhaust is then a "chemtrail" even when you do not see it. and of course such "chemtrails" from cars and trucks are a much more immediate concern to health and welfare and global warming.

If you decide to limit the definition of "chemtrails" to only chemical trails from aircraft for the purpose of geoengineering then you're back to problem 1 - there's no actual evidence of anything like that being done. There is a lot of talk about it - but as a definition it is pretty useless since the term chemtrails already has a well understood meaning (for almost everyone), and using it for something completely different will just confuse people.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

My apologies if I have confused the official definition of "chemtrails." My thought was simply that scientific experimentation in the category of geo-engineering might relate to what are called chemtrails. To my admittedly limited knowledge, chemtrails remain a mysterious and hotly contested phenomena for some folks and a ridiculous joke to others, so I don't see anything wrong in looking at it from this angle.

Also, I certainly wasn't trying to make every chemical trail in the sky a "chemtrail" - not sure where you got that from my post... There are a couple of posts above by MagicWanderer that are very intriguing in regards to scientific experimentation for geo-engineering purposes.

peace,
AB

a reply to: MagicWand67

Assuming the tracer is 100% inert and that's a certainty without dissent (compromising in this area seems the worst idea one could suggest, at least in questions of what is or isn't safe, eh).

Assuming that as a given though? I wouldn't mind seeing international treaty with U.S. Ratification to require tracer material be used in any atmospheric spraying or dispersion of any kind. Including Cloud seeding, routine regional efforts as some nations may see it, or full blown 'chemtrailing' in the conventional sense, as your one report theorized and war gamed down to the pennies in costs to accomplish.

It's that very question of how regional may cross into global which that would answer within a few seasons time of where tracer does or does not carry itself to.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I think the inert tracers are used mostly for low level atmospheric tests. Like wind patterns and are monitored by ground based systems.

The upper atmospheric tests use things like barium rockets and satellite observation.

Noctilucent Cloud Experiment

The project, led by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, D.C., focused on fabricating a noctilucent cloud, or one that floats at an altitude of 80 to 100 kilometers in the mesosphere (a layer of the atmosphere starting at about 50 kilometers above the surface). Because these clouds block sunlight, they play a part in, and may one day offer a solution to, global warming. Scientists have been able to use radar to track the behavior of natural noctilucent clouds, gleaning their speeds and densities.

But studying artificial clouds offers "more of a controlled situation," says Paul Bernhardt, a senior research associate in the NRL's Plasma Physics Division and leader of the project.* "People [who] study the natural clouds, they have to sit there and wait" to come across one in Earth's upper atmosphere.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
My apologies if I have confused the official definition of "chemtrails."

AFAIK there is no such thing as an "official definition" - but there is common usage, and the common usage is the white lines that look vey much like contrails.

My thought was simply that scientific experimentation in the category of geo-engineering might relate to what are called chemtrails.

Indeed such experiments exist and are ongoing, and occasionally you see reference to them here - a few threads have been started as a result of such tests, eg see www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, I certainly wasn't trying to make every chemical trail in the sky a "chemtrail" - not sure where you got that from my post... There are a couple of posts above by MagicWanderer that are very intriguing in regards to scientific experimentation for geo-engineering purposes.

from time to time people try to include everything in the sky that is made up of chemicals as a chemtrail - and I appreciate that you are using the term on the coat tails of the OP and others - IMO they are guilty of trying to expand the definition for no good reason.




peace,
AB

The idea of studying artificial clouds is not new and neither are the ideas of SRM

Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Institute

In 1979, physicist Freeman Dyson, in his characteristically prescient manner, proposed the deliberate, large-scale introduction of such fine particles into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming, which he thought even then would eventually become a human concern.

Indeed, the director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's Coordination Office has been promoting such geoengineering for three decades.

The web page above has many links to scientific studies all related to geoengineering and SRM. Some of the links are dead but the papers can still be found on Google.

The Global Change Research Program is basically the USA's equivalent to the IPCC.

Let's take a look at some other technology used in atmospheric studies.

SMART DUST

3-D Weather Mapping

Source

SMART Dust are small maple leaf like structures. On board are miniature sensors for temperature, moisture and wind profile monitoring. To relay the information they are also equipped with signal emitters. Since these leaves are very light weighted they descend slowly towards the earth’s surface, and as they do, they constantly send out information about temperature, moisture and wind directions. Each leaf costs around US $30, and is released into the atmosphere by a small
auto plane.

The potential applications for these ‘Smart Dust Particles’ as pointed out in [1], are to trace wind profiles in the Bay area, and since in reality these particles fall in a 3–D environment, a possibility of constructing a 3–D weather map also exists.

Source

In the 1990s, a researcher named Kris Pister dreamed up a wild future in which people would sprinkle the Earth with countless tiny sensors, no larger than grains of rice.
These "smart dust" particles, as he called them, would monitor everything, acting like electronic nerve endings for the planet. Fitted with computing power, sensing equipment, wireless radios and long battery life, the smart dust would make observations and relay mountains of real-time data about people, cities and the natural environment.
Now, a version of Pister's smart dust fantasy is starting to become reality.

But it's not just for weather applications

MEMS

Lab on a chip








Snopes - smart dust



Sprinkle enough of this stuff around and you can generate 3D maps of the environment and even track moving targets. Kinda spooky if you ask me.

I don't think Tanker Enemy videos are allowed on here anymore

That Smart dust stuff is very interesting but I don't think you can yet say that it is used in atmospheric studies. As the Hitachi pic says it's RFID with a 600ft range.

a reply to: MagicWand67

a reply to: mrthumpy

The Hitachi devices are not the same as the weather MEMS.

Here is the link again...

Link

a reply to: MagicWand67

It's supposed to be the size of a piece of dust, but now is the size of a quarter.
So sprinkling is a bit out of the realm of possibilities thus far. Cool future tech.


But like all the geoengineering ideas being discussed, still just an idea.

a reply to: network dude

That's not correct dude.

There are different kinds of MEMS.

You're mixing up two of them and thinking it's the same one.

Are there any pictures of these things? They sound cool

a reply to: MagicWand67

a reply to: MagicWand67

Sprinkle enough of this stuff around and you can generate 3D maps of the environment and even track moving targets. Kinda spooky if you ask me.

Is this currently feasible? If so, is it being used now?

a reply to: mrthumpy

There's a diagram of one in this paper. Let me try to find some more.


Source

Hitachi RFID

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Is this currently feasible?

I don't know. My guess is YES

If so , is it being used now?

I don't know. My guess is it's still in R&D

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: network dude

That's not correct dude.

There are different kinds of MEMS.

You're mixing up two of them and thinking it's the same one.

I am not sure, you posted this picture:


Where is plainly states that the size of these are planned to be a speck of dust, but are now quarter sized. Is your source wrong? Or am I missing something?

edit to add: From your snopes paper:

We have not yet seen any mention of such "smart dust" technology having GPS capabilities or being able to survive in a functional state after being ingested, however.
Read more at www.snopes.com...