Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: MagicWand67

The SPICE experiment shows what stage the research is at. It's no longer just computer models. It's in line to go live, real world open air testing.

From your link to SPICE

Engineers from the University of Cambridge and Marshall Aerospace will assess the effect of wind on tethered ballon at a height of 1 km while at the same time pumping water at a rate of around 100 kg/hour.[8] They will be using the data obtained from these tests in computer models aimed at examining how a full-scale tethered balloon might behave in the high winds experienced at altitudes up 20 km.

Good thing that was cancelled. The effects could have approached an ELE.

ETA: There's that 20 km figure again. That's about 65,000'. Why so high?

originally posted by: MagicWand67
The SPICE experiment shows what stage the research is at. It's no longer just computer models. It's in line to go live, real world open air testing.

Indeed - and also that it is public, debated, mentioned in the MSM, not from jet liners, highly visible, they are going to "spray" water, and cancelled more than 2 years ago!

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

The point is that scientists want real world data to support and update their models with.

They're at the stage of testing delivery mechanisms and making man-made clouds to study.

I am not saying "the sky is falling". I'm not fear mongering or promoting anything.

I'm trying to stay informed and learn. So I can make informed decisions and participate by voicing my opinions.

Making light of the situation is ignorant.

a reply to: MagicWand67
I'm not making light of the situation. I'm wondering if you read the stuff you post. The way you described the SPICE test, well, THAT seemed kind of ignorant to me. Then again, considering your recent posts in this thread that doesn't seem to bother you.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Sorry if I didn't sugar coat it enough for you sweet pea.

I tell it like I see it.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


Why am I not surprised by the juvenile responses you both display?

What's the big joke here?

You didn't get the reference to the classic Frankenstein? It was not meant to be juvenile. Your posts range from posting some great information, to projecting false opinions at times. Somehow, an idea goes from that to reality based on your need to want it to be true. And you justify it with your logic.

Can't this be discussed using verifiable facts? Or do we need to just "Assume" we are being lied to (since it's in our best interests).

a reply to: network dude

I don't really see how your Frankenstein reference is relevant to this conversation. You seem to forget that Frankenstein's monster, in the classic movie, killed a little girl and threw her in the lake. So pitchforks and torches were justified. And by you implying that I am on some kind of witch hunt is absolutely juvenile behavior and false.

You are projecting your own false opinions. I would be happy to discuss the facts. I also have no issue with speculating about the potential for abuse here and the other dangers associated with SRM. I am not alone in thinking that the potential for abuse is high and many people are justifiably suspicious. Which deserves to be mentioned and discussed as well.

Myself and others have contributed enough verifiable facts to open up this discussion to a wide range of topics. Any of which you are free to comment on. Yet, you falsely claim you want to discuss these "verifiable facts". If you want to discuss facts then discuss them. It appears to me that you want to chime in on the speculative aspects in a disruptive and mocking manner. This is quite disingenuous of you in fact.

If you want to discuss verifiable facts by all means then discuss it. Your attitude towards verifiable facts so far has been quite dismissive. You're more than welcome to bring up a topic for this discussion. Which facts would you like to discuss?
But do not try and prevent myself or others from discussing the speculative aspects of this topic. In my opinion both areas of discussion are worthy and both deserve some attention and detail.

a reply to: MagicWand67

I doubt I have the ability to stop anyone from discussing anything. And as I said before, this needs to be discussed and kept in the open so we will know when and if these things start happening.

So you just keep on doing what you do and if I see a misrepresentation of facts, I'll keep doing what I do. fair enough?

a reply to: network dude

Like you did with the topic of chaff?

Which is a perfect example of why we shouldn't always trust the official version of "verifiable facts".

Sometimes "verifiable facts" don't tell the whole story and the devil is in the details.

Air Quality and Bio-fuels testing

Could these tests be used to study SRM?

ACCESS 2
The flights are part of the Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions or ACCESS II experiment, which is measuring and characterizing airborne emissions from the DC-8 as it burns both conventional jet fuel and blended alternative fuels, including a biofuel. NASA, with research partners from Germany and Canada, is investigating fuel effects on aircraft cruise emissions and contrail formation.

Within NASA, ACCESS II is a joint project involving Armstrong Flight Research Center, California; Langley Research Center, Virginia; and Glenn Research Center in Cleveland. The research supports NASA aeronautics' strategic vision, which has as a goal to enable transition of industry to low-carbon fuels and alternative propulsion systems.

Source

NASA took to the skies today -- along with international partners the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and National Research Council of Canada (NRC) -- to begin a series of flight tests to gather critical data that may aid in the development of cleaner aircraft fuels.

The flight tests over Palmdale, California, called Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions II (ACCESS II), include NASA's DC-8 and HU-25C Guardian, DLR's Falcon 20-E5, and NRC's CT-133 research aircraft.

NASA's DC-8 leads the flight formation as the "guinea pig" of this experiment. Its engines will burn various fuel blends, while the Falcon and CT-133 measure emissions and observe contrail formation from the DC-8.

Flying as high as 40,000 feet, the DC-8's four CFM56 engines burn either traditional jet fuel JP-8 or a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and renewable alternative fuel of hydro processed esters and fatty acids produced from camelina plant oil.

SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy)

Source

NASA displayed an impressive array of hi-tech aircraft used in its Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS II) flight experiment during a media day for reporters from around the world.

On May 20, NASA Armstrong Building 703, at Palmdale, California, hosted the Alternative Fuel Effects on Contrails and Cruise Emissions (ACCESS II) flight experiment media day.

The event gave reporters the opportunity to learn more about scientific research being conducted on the effects of alternate fuels, including synthetic and biofuel formulations, on engine performance, emissions and aircraft-generated contrails at altitudes typically flown by commercial airliners.

AERONET


The AERONET (AErosol RObotic NETwork) program is a federation of ground-based remote sensing aerosol networks established by NASA and PHOTONS (PHOtométrie pour le Traitement Opérationnel de Normalisation Satellitaire; Univ. of Lille 1, CNES, and CNRS-INSU) and is greatly expanded by collaborators from national agencies, institutes, universities, individual scientists, and partners. The program provides a long-term, continuous and readily accessible public domain database of aerosol optical, microphysical and radiative properties for aerosol research and characterization, validation of satellite retrievals, and synergism with other databases. The network imposes standardization of instruments, calibration, processing and distribution.

AERONET collaboration provides globally distributed observations of spectral aerosol optical depth (AOD), inversion products, and precipitable water in diverse aerosol regimes. Aerosol optical depth data are computed for three data quality levels: Level 1.0 (unscreened), Level 1.5 (cloud-screened), and Level 2.0 (cloud-screened and quality-assured). Inversions, precipitable water, and other AOD-dependent products are derived from these levels and may implement additional quality checks.

Discover AQ

The campaign will employ NASA aircraft to make a series of flights, with scientific instruments on board to measure gaseous and particulate pollution, beginning in 2011. The series of flights -- which will be made by NASA Langley's King Air and NASA's P-3B – will commence over Baltimore-Washington, D.C. in 2011.

Other future flights may include Houston (2013); Sacramento (2013); and a final site in 2014 to be determined. The measurements will be taken in concert with ground observations in order to shed light on how satellites could be used to make similar, consistent measurements over time, with the ultimate goal of putting better data in the hands of policymakers and elected officials.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
Air Quality and Bio-fuels testing
Could these tests be used to study SRM?

no.

SRM studies could study SRM.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Sorry if I didn't sugar coat it enough for you sweet pea.

I tell it like I see it.

Me too.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul


Why am I not surprised by the juvenile responses you both display?

Probably because they are highly appropriate - and therefore not surprising.

What's the big joke here?

chemtrail mythology and "just asking questions" ratinoalisation

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: MagicWand67
Air Quality and Bio-fuels testing
Could these tests be used to study SRM?

no.

SRM studies could study SRM.

It's called multitasking and is a common practice as a component of compartmentalization. It saves money and provides a perfect cover story at the same time.

"Alternative fuels" testing provides the perfect opportunity to run SRM tests without the media attention and public scrutiny associated with geoengineering research.

NASA

The story so far
Measurements taken during ACCESS I in 2013 of the burned blended fuel showed soot emissions were reduced by 40 to 60 percent compared to JP-8 fuel by itself, according to Bruce Anderson, NASA's principal investigator for the ACCESS program.

"We saw big changes in soot emissions from the DC-8, but we weren't able to make clear ties between the type of fuel burned and formation of contrails. So for ACCESS II we really want to dig into that," Anderson said.

Understanding more about contrail formation is important because they are considered an essential variable in discussions about climate change.

To help test at least one of those possibilities, for ACCESS II the DC-8 will fly with both a low sulfur and high sulfur grade of JP-8 jet fuel.

High sulfur content in the fuel to test contrail formations and their relationship to climate change.

Hmmmm? .... Sure sounds familiar.

I just wanted to add a few more important documents here for safe keeping.

A Coordinated
Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts





CLIMATE CHANGE
Preliminary Observations on Geoengineering Science, Federal Efforts, and Governance Issues

Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy


Researchi ng Solar Radiation Management as a Climate Policy Option


Jet fuel additives :

Aluminum Soap Demisting Agent in Jet Fuel.

SAFETY DATA SHEET
STADIS (R) 450