We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan

reply to post by pianopraze

There is plenty of anecdotal "whistleblower" data that it is happening.

I've asked this before: "Show me ONE" of these data. There's plenty, right? Name me a "whistleblower" who says that dangerous geoengineering is going on right now.

That on top of the billions they are pouring into geoengineering/adaptation is plenty of reason to be suspicious given their track record of proceeding with operations years ahead of their admitting.

None of "what they are doing" is secret, especially if Mat can find it! The problem here is that you take studies and turn them into programs with no evidence; and you turn a helpful program and turn it into something lethal with no evidence.

"Suspicious" just doesn't cut it here.

Less lethal than the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, MK ULTRA, and radiation experiments I referenced here.

All the others have been repeatedly mentioned throughout the geoengineering papers including some we have not mentioned such as H2So4. Re-watch "What In The World Are They Spraying" and you can hear geoengineers talk about some such as aluminum. Mat referenced barium at least that I remember already in this thread, and many others throughout this and several threads which we discuss this topic.

Sulfuric acid /hygrogen sulfide have long been discussed for SRM. The fearmongering video producers and Mat use aluminum and barium without anything to support that they are part of any on-going geoengineering.

I find it fascinating that mat offers scientific paper after scientific paper and they are all ignored.

Anyone can do what Mat does: pick some key words, Google them, then post the parts where the words show up. Mat has consistently demonstrated that he has no idea what he is posting or how it relates to on going geoengineering or "chemtrails."

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
Hi Richard - Thanks for the invite. I have not repaired my computer - i am enjoying not being bound on-line. I started reading this thread and then noticed that we have ten pages here. Sorry, but i do not have the initiative to read this. Geo-engineering is, just as money is. I am certain that the deeper we go, the more the paper trail will lead to profits - who benefits?

If i can help answer technical questions, I would like to help. I plan to make more you-tube videos like the one on nuclear chemistry - if people want to suggest topics, i would be more than pleased to explain how the chemistry works. For geo-engineering, the chemistry works badly - the idea of particles deflecting wave radiation to control gaian heating does not make sense. The aluminum toxicity is denied, even though i believe all the proof is obvious. Fluoride is also a highly toxic by-product of the aluminum smelting industry.

Perhaps transparency does not mean all cards on the table. The peer reviewed nonsense is done by gatekeepers holding the reigns on knowledge - we the people must do our own homework and come up with a better system. Civil disobedience was once suggested by a gentleman named Thoreau - a lawyer named Ghandi introduced satyagraha. Perhaps we need to go back to simpler times, simpler methods. Really, we would just like straight answers.

PS: thank you Mattias for the invite, too

It is so wonderful to see you Dr. Thyme. It warms my heart

Many of the papers on geoengineering that are on the whitehouse dot gov and candian accademic websites are talking about the injection of So2 and H2So4 strait into the engines of airplanes which would then aid in combustion as well as spreading the particulates. Here are two papers for reference:
dot gov paper
Canadian paper

They seem to think this is a good work and phage also suggest that So2 particles in particular would lead to blue skys... not larger, more persistent contrails so:
1. Would this be a good idea? (H2So4, and So2)
2. What would the side effects be?
3. Would it produce blue skies as phage suggests; or a rainbow haze filling the sky like many observe in their contrail pics and movies suggesting it is geoengineering via aerosol particulates; or something else?
4. Please address any other thoughts you might have on this that I am not covering with my questions.

reply to post by lemmehowdt


Dr. Thyme!

How good to see you with us!

Looking forward to your input, and thanks again for your scholarly input.

Originally posted by lemmehowdt
Geo-engineering is, just as money is. I am certain that the deeper we go, the more the paper trail will lead to profits - who benefits?

You might want to get your name on that quote.

reply to post by burntheships


I don't think you can really claim to be getting "scholarly input" from someone who says that peer review is nonsenese, yet still sports a title that is granted by a peer review process and claims expertise from it!!

reply to post by pianopraze

Even if we haven't started we need to stop this insanity. These globalists self admittedly want to reduce the population by 95%.

This statement alone proves the idiocy of such a belief.

If "globalists" eliminate all but 300,000,000 people (less than the US population), who will work, who will buy and sell, who will make them "rich" or "powerful" if there's nothing left to control and no riches to steal or spend?

Money, gold and jewels will mean nothing to the few thousands left in So America, Indonesia, Russia, Europe, Asia, India, No. America, Australia, et c All farming will be subsistence.

There will be no mass-industry or modern technology.

This "theory" may sound impressive, but it is stupid and baseless.

the truth being presented time and again is this is there is insufficient evidence that Co2 is linked to global warming, it has been shown our effects are minuscule compared to natural forces, we are on a natural warming cycle that has been going on for tens of thousands of years, and global cooling is much more dangerous to our survival than the current, relatively stable, climatic conditions.

I agree that AGW is a hoax. THAT is why there are so many opposed to spending anything on large-scale implementation!

China will never agree.
Russia will never agree.
Brazil will never agree.
India will never agree.

Given that the UK, the EU in part, and the US are the only industrialized advocates ( and there's large groups in opposition in each of them) for AGW and mitigation, there is absolutely NO CHANCE for a global implementation of geoengineering.

You are fearmongering and ignoring reality to even suggest otherwise without some semblance of PROOF.

Study after study and project after project to define the problem and possible solutions DO NOT equate to actual programs! Where are the results? THERE ARE NONE! IT'S GETTING HOTTER!.
Where's the population reduction? There is none!

Your "3 year old" is a better example of the childish fear of the dark, of not knowing what's under the bed, or what the other kids are saying about you behind your back that "chemtrails" and geoengineering fearful represent for otherwise normal adults.

It's all pathetic, worthless, baseless fear.

And those 95% who are being killed off? their population has grown by more than 1,000,000,000 during that make-believe plot, too!

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul



Dr Thyme's point was not that peer review is nonsense.

The point was that all peer review studies get edited by higher ups who can decide what goes into the peer review study.


As in the case with the air safety study I posted.

When they say that they haven't studied these techniques, they are saying it only in terms of large scale coordinated efforts that would have a global effect.

It does not apply to smaller local scale studies of a few man made cirrus here, there and everywhere. The appearance of more and more of these persistent contrails, IMO are associated with SRM studies of one kind or another.

The plan for actual deployment of SAG and other SRM techniques has been suggested to be done in gradual, incremental amounts. I think the lower atmosphere techniques of cloud whitening is more closely related to the persistent spreading contrails people see and not so much SAG.

The albedo effects of cloud whitening with sea salt is very similar to the effects man made cirrus or injecting salts into the air from a plane would have.

reply to post by pianopraze

Interesting that they both are about injecting particulate aerosols

Those are not the only geoengineering ideas, as you've acknowledged. Neither is dependent upon jet aircraft; one suggests spraying water from boats, others have suggested floating pipelines, stratospheric release of optically transparent forms of sulfur compounds, and balloons.

and that is what all the debunkers are trying hardest to keep us from discussing....

No one has tried to keep "us" from discussing geoengineering in any form.

Some people choose not to discuss, but to post cut & paste articles or videos without any "discussion" whatsoever.
Some people choose to imply insidious intent and hurtful purpose, despite everyone's agreed-upon definition of "geoengineering" as beneficial and timely. (To suggest otherwise means it is not geoengineering they wish to discuss).
Some people choose to equate geoengineering with "chemtrails" without making a real-world connection; instead, relying upon "suspicion" and "intuition" as support, which YOU have made perfectly clear, IS NOT geoengineering.

The only thing the "debunkers" have tried to do is keep things focused and supported by facts. What's wrong with that?

So, if you want to concentrate on geoengineering, then stay on topic and think about what you and the fearful post here.

Come on, release of pilot safety reports, space-based weather observations, pollution in Mexico city and similar "cut & paste" regurgitation are no more a "discussion" of geoengineering than the "globalist theory of extermination." You should know that, already.

Originally posted by jdub297
If you believe in AGW, or the power of man against nature, then these are benevolent things.
I believe almost anything connected with globalists only benifits them and is most likely harmful to the rest of us.

It is not much of a stretch to imagine these geoengineering aka adaptation programs are using the number one method.

At least you come close to admitting this is all imaginary
wow... really? You really tried to use that bad of a twist? I mean come on.. your not even make people work to see how badly your twisting things...

Originally posted by jdub297

JW stated two cases they admitted to geoengineering.

NO! I cited several studies, all done by private individuals and educators, all public, and ALL FAILURES!
You CITED no studies, dispite my asking you for the citations.
Why do you deliberately slant things to fit your alarmist agenda?
Do you dream of the day (never to come) when you can look back at all the "bullies" who made you feel bad in school, and say, "I Told You So?"
Actually I was the one stoping the bullies picking on others. A role I seem to keep up even here on ATS. As to slanting, it's pretty obvious which one here is doing that. You're techniques are crystal clear to me I only bother to point them out to others so they can learn them now.

This rant has nothing to do with geoengineering. Are you offering your opinion that geoengineering isn't really about HELPING mankind, but secretly trying to harm us?
If you would bother to read half my posts in this thread you would already know my answer

The problem is So2, aluminum, barium, strontium, etc are less lethal in the short run, but in the end might kill more people in the long run.

Where do these fit into geoengineering? How are they currently harming people?
Again read the threads, I'm not your nanny to spoon feed you. Asked & answered

What is the lethality of these secret evil geoengineering programs that are plainly visible to "chemtrail" believers, funded and studied by humanitarian NGOs, and anti-AGW?
Asked & answered.

deny ignorance
I continue to.

jw
Just Working?

Originally posted by jdub297
I've asked this before: "Show me ONE" of these data. There's plenty, right? Name me a "whistleblower" who says that dangerous geoengineering is going on right now.
I posted a video and a link below. Also anyone talking about Project Cloverleaf. Mat has posted many, many.. and you know it. So again you are disingenuous. Deny everything, right?
None of "what they are doing" is secret, especially if Mat can find it! The problem here is that you take studies and turn them into programs with no evidence; and you turn a helpful program and turn it into something lethal with no evidence.
Just because there are leaks does not mean there is not top secret programs going on. The internet is our best tool for breaking their secrecy. Mat has posted paper, after paper showing all the small parts I think he's getting tired of spoon feeding also. Just because you pretend they are not pieces to the puzzle which add up to a very obvious hole means nothing. The info is there for the unbiased observers.

Sulfuric acid /hygrogen sulfide have long been discussed for SRM. The fearmongering video producers and Mat use aluminum and barium without anything to support that they are part of any on-going geoengineering.
Another twist; most of mat's papers on barium have been in relation to military programs. Aluminum is being deployed in mass blankets also. It maters not what they are spraying for, it does matter that these are not good for us or the environment no matter how the air force pretends otherwise.

Anyone can do what Mat does: pick some key words, Google them, then post the parts where the words show up. Mat has consistently demonstrated that he has no idea what he is posting or how it relates to on going geoengineering or "chemtrails."
answered above

Whistleblowers AC Griffith:

Whistleblower on Coast to Coast AM:
link

I think I've pointed out the techniques you are using in many, many other threads so I won't wast the time here.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Dr Thyme's point was not that peer review is nonsense.
The point was that all peer review studies get edited by higher ups who can decide what goes into the peer review study.

Since when do YOU speak for "Dr. Thyme?"

(His "quote" was clearly lifted from elsewhere, and baselessly injects flouride and aluminum into the geoengineering equation. More obvious deception by pretending it was posted in this thread.)

As in the case with the air safety study I posted.

That was a government report, not a peer-reviewed scientific study offered for publication in a scientific Journal.

Is this another intentional deception, or do you just not know the difference?

STEP 1: Prepare alibi/cover up story

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6c4afe6373.png[/atsimg]

STEP 2:Unload the material from truck onto aircraft

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14c90f4b7930.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2155d7492a4.jpg[/atsimg]

STEP 3: Inject into atmosphere as aerosol

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e04e38efdc6.jpg[/atsimg]

STEP 4: Study effects of man made cirrus clouds

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7cea9fdeb50d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7d84314cb5b.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by jdub297


I don't speak for him, I spoke from my own interpretation of what he said.

I find it strange how you seem to defend every cover up attempt from Governments, the military, NASA and other agencies and you seem to think it's be no big deal and unrelated to this topic.

reply to post by pianopraze

Many of the papers on geoengineering that are on the whitehouse dot gov and candian accademic websites are talking about the injection of So2 and H2So4 strait into the engines of airplanes which would then aid in combustion as well as spreading the particulates. Here are two papers for reference:
dot gov paper
Canadian paper

They seem to think this is a good work and phage also suggest that So2 particles in particular would lead to blue skys... not larger, more persistent contrails so:
1. Would this be a good idea? (H2So4, and So2)
2. What would the side effects be?
3. Would it produce blue skies as phage suggests; or a rainbow haze filling the sky like many observe in their contrail pics and movies suggesting it is geoengineering via aerosol particulates; or something else?
4. Please address any other thoughts you might have on this that I am not covering with my questions.

Why must you mischaracterize the AeroGeo COST report for a "scientist?"

Why don't you just pose straightforward questions?

Try these:

Dr., given that there are significant disagreements about the causes and existence of "global warming," would you support the injection of anything today into the stratosphere?

Dr., are you aware of any studies that indicate a tropospheric or stratospheric airborne source for aluminum, barium or sulfur compounds found at ground level?

Dr., are you aware of any studies that indicate a tropospheric or stratospheric airborne source for aluminum, barium or sulfur compounds found in the air of the lower atmosphere?

Dr., if your answer to either of the previous two questions is anything other than "No," would you please identify the author(s) and provide us the citations(s) to the studies?

Dr., are you aware of any studies that indicate that jet aircraft are the source for aluminum, barium or sulfur compounds found at ground level?

Dr., if your answer to the foregoing question is anything other than "No," would you please identify the author(s) and provide us the citation(s) to the studies?

Dr., do you believe that jet aircraft are spraying anything other than ordinary byproducts of jet fuel combustion into the air? If so, please identify for us the studies supporting your conclusion. Please also identify the authors and their citations if any of these studies were published in trade or professional journals.


There's a few questions that should get a real discussion going. Will you ask them?

If "globalists" eliminate all but 300,000,000 people (less than the US population), who will work, who will buy and sell, who will make them "rich" or "powerful" if there's nothing left to control and no riches to steal or spend?

They have already stolen everything almost when it comes to riches and power.....the last frontier for these greedy lunatics is life sustaining resources, the air, the water, the soil.......and just when you think it can't get any more crazy...these sick bastards what to add insult to injury with their smug , in our face, symbolism outlining exactly what their intentions are! Sigh......I say we call them out at every opportunity...refuse to give our compliance or allow them to take any satisfaction in the victory they believe they have achieved.......our very souls is what they seek....I'm not giving them mine!

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
When they say that they haven't studied these techniques, they are saying it only in terms of large scale coordinated efforts that would have a global effect.

Where in the reports you cherry-picked do they make any such limitations on the scope of their studies?
Nowhere.
You made this up.
It is pure fabrication.

It does not apply to smaller local scale studies of a few man made cirrus here, there and everywhere.

Why not?
Who says?
Where do the reports say this?
You made this up.

The appearance of more and more of these persistent contrails, IMO are associated with SRM studies of one kind or another.

Your opinion is not even evidence, much less proof. So why add it here?

The plan for actual deployment of SAG and other SRM techniques has been suggested to be done in gradual, incremental amounts.

"The plan?" Whose plan? Where, and when?
This is you substituting opinion for fact again.

I think the lower atmosphere techniques of cloud whitening is more closely related to the persistent spreading contrails people see and not so much SAG.

"You think?" What does that add to the topic? How are they "more closely related?"

The albedo effects of cloud whitening with sea salt is very similar to the effects man made cirrus or injecting salts into the air from a plane would have.

Since it hasn't been done for comparison, how do you know this?
You made this up. Pure fabrication.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

The albedo effects of cloud whitening with sea salt is very similar to the effects man made cirrus or injecting salts into the air from a plane would have.

Well no, it isn't actually. Which is why no-one has ever proposed doing something of this nature using aircraft.

As you will know, cirrus clouds - whether natural or manmade - produce a net warming effect. So it would rather self defeating to create contrails to aid cooling, don't you think?

Raytheon

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/578edd910a09.jpg[/atsimg]

www.raytheon.com...

Fast forward to today. In 2007 Raytheon held the first Grand Challenge workshop that united people from across the company to stimulate new ideas and concepts. One of the challenges included the need to develop ways to counter enemy air defenses. One idea that emerged was the notion of an electronic, fog-like material that could be dispersed into a giant plume and used to degrade the ability of enemy radar to detect aircraft. The concept is similar to the old idea of deploying clouds of metallic chaff that would reflect radar signals and generate false echoes. This "chaff" would be different — scavenging energy from sunlight and enemy radar and using this energy to effectively shield incoming aircraft from detection. The idea evolved into a concept for environmentally powered electronic mist.

A connection with the cloud of optically fluorescent quantum dots from the 1990s was made. The particles in this fog needed to be tiny but very energy efficient, and be able to scavenge power from very lowdensity sources. After analyzing the concept, it became clear that the ideal device to absorb ambient energy and disrupt the radar was indeed a variation of the quantum dot used in the conceptual QuIP super-processor. A single quantum tunnel diode could be used as an energy harvester and allow for remote on/off control. Importantly, this functionality could be packed into microelectronic chips small enough to be used as the pigment in a fog generator.

CFR wants geoengineering but also wants governance

Unilateral Geoengineering
Non-technical Briefing Notes for a Workshop
At the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008
www.cfr.org...

Geoengineering Strategies
Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve
increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it
can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase
the planet’s reflectivity:
1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the
stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s
surface).
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planet's land cover from things that are dark

SAG - SRM

Stratospheric Aerosols
Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space. Figure 2 illustrates the basic idea.(absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.

There is clear evidence from many large past volcanic eruptions that this mechanism can cool the planet. For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines (Figure 3) in 1991 produced global scale cooling of about 0.5 °C (the cooling probably would have been closer to 0.6°C if there had not been an El Niño event at the same time). The change in albedo was caused by the large quantity of sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere which was converted into small particles and resulted in the creation of more high cirrus clouds. Changes in temperature began to occur within just a short time after the eruption.

Applied to geoengineering, various technologies could be used to loft particles into the
stratosphere, such as naval guns, rockets, hot air balloons or blimps, or a fleet of highflying aircraft. Potential types of particles for injection include sulfur dioxide, aluminum oxide dust or even designer self-levitating aerosols that might be engineered to migrate to particular regions (e.g. over the arctic) or to rise above the stratospher (so as not to interfere in stratospheric chemistry). Because of the relative horizontal stability of the stratosphere compared to the troposphere, the residence time of injected particles is approximately 1-2 years. As a result, such a scheme would require only annual or biannual replenishment A 1992 report of the National Research Council

was the first to systematically estimate the potential costs of a program of stratospheric albedo modification. Their estimate was based on the use of a standard naval gun system dispensing commercial aluminum oxide dust to counteract the warming effect of a CO2 doubling. Undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project were estimated to be $100 billion. More recent analysis

has suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to as little as a few hundred million dollars per year – clearly well within the budget of almost all nations, and much less costly than any program to dramatically reduce the emissions of CO2 Indeed, there are a handful of individuals whreflecting composite particles that would be self-orienting and self-levitating under the combined influences of solar radiation, differential forces from molecular collisions, and the earth's electric and magnetic fields.

Keith notes that "photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry…[Such] levitated particles can have long lifetimes, reducing the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol…[and] could be engineered to migrate poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to reduce polar warming so as to reduce the risk of rapid deglaciation and consequent sea level rise."o could create the endowment necessary to generate an annual annuity to operate such a program.

Cloud Cover Modification

The albedo can also be increased by increasing the quantity and reflectivity of lower cloud layers. Most roposals suggest that this be done by increasing the abundance and reflectivity of the low-altitude stratocumulus clouds that naturally cover about 30% of the Earth’s surface. Enhanced cloud coverage would be accomplished by artificially increasing the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Proposals for this strategy typically target the low-level marine stratocumulus clouds that frequently lie off the upwind coast of most continents.

A cloud cover modification system requires a supply or mechanism for the generation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) as well as a vehicle for CCN dispersal. A 1992 NAS report considered a theoretical system that would use sulfuric acid as CCN. The level of SO2 emissions required to counteract the effects of double CO2 concentrations was estimated as 31,000 tons per day, an amount equivalent at the time to the SO2 emissions from a coal-fired power plant for an entire year. A system of ships was proposed as a dispersal mechanism with associated estimated capital and operating costs of approximately $1 trillion over 40 years, the equivalent of a yearly cost of approximately $1 billion. Clearly such an approach would have massive environmental impacts in the form of acid rain.

More recently, John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research proposed that salt from seawater could be effectively used as CCN, a material that has the advantage of not (currently) being considered a pollutant. Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh has designed an “albedo spray vessel” which would put the Latham theory into practice. He estimates a fleet of 500 such wind-powered vessels would counteract the warming effects of double CO2 concentrations. Salter calculated that vessels would cost 1 million British pounds (approximately $2 million) each to build, and that a total project investment of approximately $1.1 billion would produce a fleet that could operate for 20 years.Operating costs were not estimated.Of course, any such action undertaken on the high seas would be much easier to interdict than an action taken within the continental boundaries of a nation state

Cleaning up Geoengineering style...BATTELLE makes lots of money
www.battelle.org...

www.battelle.org...

About Battelle

Battelle is a global leader in science and technology. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, it develops and commercializes technology and manages laboratories for clients. Battelle, with the national labs it manages or co-manages, oversees 16,000 staff members and conducts more than $3 billion in annual research and development. Battelle innovations include the development of the office copier machine (Xerox), pioneering work on compact disc technology, medical technology advancements, and fiber optic technologies.

With more than 50 years' experience in military chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense programs, Battelle is a leader in using science and technology to detect hazards and protect people and facilities against weapons of mass destruction. Battelle's expertise covers all aspects of anti-terrorism defenses-from threat and vulnerability assessments, to testing of security systems, equipment, vaccines, and medical and community response; and training and evaluations

Lot's of money involved in Geoengineering governance

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change
www.eclac.cl...

The World Bank (2006) puts the cost of climate-proofing existing investments in
developing countries at US$10–US$40 billion per annum. Even excluding outlying
estimates within the study (which are as high as US$100 billion), this is a wide range:
from around 10 to 40 percent of net ODA. Climate-proofing ODA and the most 29
exposed concessionally-financed investments is estimated to cost US$4–US$8 billion
annually.
• UNDP (2007), building on the earlier work of the World Bank, estimates an annual
cost of climate-proofing development investment, by 2015, of around US$44 billion
per annum, with an additional US$2 billion to strengthen disaster response—and a
further annual US$40 billion in strengthening social safety nets.
• UNFCCC (2007) estimates suggest an annual investment cost for agriculture, health,
water and coastal protection, of around US$40 billion per annum by 2030—perhaps
half of which might fall on the public sector (Figure 4). It also reports a very wide
range for additional infrastructure needs, of US$8–US$130 billion annually.
Figure 4. Additional Adaptation Investment, 2030

UN says no to large scale Geoengineering tests. But does not ban small scale studies.

www.reuters.com...

(Reuters) - The United Nations should impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, green groups say, fearing they could harm nature and mankind. The risks were too great because the impacts of manipulating nature on a vast scale were not fully known, the groups said at a major U.N. meeting in Japan aimed at combating increasing losses of plant and animal species. Envoys from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Nagoya, Japan, to agree targets to fight the destruction of forests, rivers and coral reefs that provide resources and services central to livelihoods and economies. A major cause for the rapid losses in nature is climate change, the United Nations says, raising the urgency for the world to do whatever it can to curb global warming and prevent extreme droughts, floods and rising sea levels. Some countries regard geo-engineering projects costing billions of dollars as a way to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth or soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide. "It's absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world's support," Pat Mooney, from Canada-headquartered advocacy organization ETC Group, told Reuters on the sidelines of the October 18-29 meeting. "They shouldn't proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay." Some conservation groups say geo-engineering is a way for some governments and companies to get out of taking steps to slash planet-warming emissions. The U.N. climate panel says a review of geo-engineering will be part of its next major report in 2013.

UN Agrees to Moratorium on Geoengineering Experiments
"The prohibition, however, does not apply to the United States, which has yet to ratify the convention"

www.democracynow.org...

Delegates to a landmark United Nations meeting on biodiversity have agreed to a moratorium on geoengineering experiments to deliberately alter the earth to decrease the level of greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement means that governments of the 193 countries that are signatories to the UN Biodiversity Convention must ensure that no geoengineering projects take place until risks to the environment as well as social, cultural and economic impacts have been properly assessed. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the United States, which has yet to ratify the convention. In a recent appearance on Democracy Now!, the Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva warned about the dangers of geoengineering.

Vandana Shiva: "These shortcuts that are attempted from places of power—and I would add, places of ignorance—of the ecological web of life, are then creating the war solution, because geoengineering becomes war on a planetary scale, with ignorance and blind spots, instead of taking the real path, which is helping communities adapt and become resilient."

The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering
www.geosc.psu.edu...


Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering: The Question of Justice
www.geosc.psu.edu...

Geoengineering
en.wikipedia.org...

small-scale research trials and global modelling having been completed.[7] Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started.[8] Some commentators have suggested that consideration of geoengineering presents a moral hazard because it threatens to reduce the political and popular pressure for emissions reduction.[9] Typically, the scientists and engineers proposing geoengineering strategies do not suggest that they are an alternative to emissions control, but rather an accompanying strategy.[10] Reviews of geoengineering techniques have emphasised that they are not substitutes for emission controls and have identified potentially stronger and weaker schemes.[11][12][13]

reply to post by Essan

As you will know, cirrus clouds - whether natural or manmade - produce a net warming effect. So it would rather self defeating to create contrails to aid cooling, don't you think?

No, I don't believe you are correct. There is not a definitive answer as to the net cooling effect but the net warming is said to be less.

Raytheon

www.raytheon.com...

Playing in the Innovation Sandbox
This project would have lain dormant if there hadn’t been an innovation lab with equipment available to go in and test the concept. Resonant tunneling diodes (RTDs) that were more than 10 years old were used to show that the concept worked. These parts had been sitting in a dry-box in the innovation lab for a long time and by most accounts should have been thrown away. The RTDs were never designed to be used this way, but they solved an important problem in an unintended fashion. There are many more technological gems populating Raytheon’s innovation labs just waiting for someone to find a new way of using them. It is important to note that none of these ideas arose in response to a well-defined customer requirement, but rather fell out of free thinking about how to solve multiple big-picture problems. With this in mind, engineers should try to frame their own problems and not wait for someone to define the problem or the solution space. One person’s kinetic kill vehicle seeker is another person’s can of electronic fog. • Brandon Pillans [email protected] Contributor: Gary Frazie

Small Lear jet has 11 minutes of chaff
www.raytheon.com.au...

The Mature EWTS also features a communications DF, up to 11 minutes of continuous chaff, and secure Voice communications.

Mission payloads for both aircraft include missile and air-intercept radar threat simulators, radar and communications jammers, chaff deployment systems and mission recording equipment. These systems provide realistic simulation of the majority of tactical capabilities likely to be encountered in a modern EW environment. Both aircraft mission systems have been designed and built for subsystem expansion and/or upgrade in order to cater for training against emerging threats.Between January 2005 and December 2010, the Raytheon EWTS Team flew 2,510 hours, achieving 910 successful missions under the Mature Services Contract. This year, the Mature EWTS Team aims to achieve the significant milestone of 1,000 successful missions

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


There can only be a net cooling or a net warming The the scientific consensus is net warming. Don't you read the news?

www.newscientist.com...


Edit: All of which is irrelevant because you still haven't found a single suggestion for any form of geoengineering which involves replicating contrails.