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

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Do you ever actually read the citations and links you post here?

Our analysis suggests three main conclusions. First, substituting aerosol geoengineering
for CO2 abatement can be an economically ineffective strategy. One key to this finding is
that a failure to sustain the aerosol forcing can lead to sizeable and abrupt climatic
changes. The monetary damages due to such a discontinuous aerosol geoengineering can
dominate the cost-benefit analysis because the monetary damages of climate change are
expected to increase with the rate of change. Second, the relative contribution of aerosol
geoengineering to an economically optimal portfolio hinges critically on so far deeply
uncertain estimates of the damages due to aerosol forcing. Even if we assume that
aerosol forcing could be deployed continuously, the aerosol geoengineering does not
considerably displace CO2 abatement in the simple economic optimal growth model until
the damages due to the aerosol forcing are rather low. Third, substituting aerosol
geoengineering for greenhouse gas emission abatement can fail an ethical test regarding
intergenerational justice.

Your own source.

Also, why are you bringing chaff into a thread about geo-engineering? Chaff is an electronic counter-measure used to confuse radar. What does that have to do with geo-engineering?

reply to post by Essan


I guess it depends which side of the MSM you get your news from. The article you provided is based on an old 2005 IPCC report from climate model studies. It's not exactly up to date and accurate is it.

www.dcbureau.org...

The World of Geoengineering

With Bill Gates’ cloud-whitening experiment recently in the news, alarm bells are sounding around the world. Gates provided a U.S.-based research body, Silver Lining, with $300,000 to develop machines which would convert seawater into microscopic particles that could be sprayed in clouds to increase the whiteness, or albedo. The clouds would reflect more sunlight back into space, thereby, theoretically cooling the planet.

What is so shocking about this research – the largest known attempt at engineering the climate – is that these scientists and engineers need no permission to go from research to execution. There are currently no laws prohibiting atmospheric geoengineering projects. A report by the UKs national academy of science, The Royal Society, warned that the side effects of cloud-whitening were unknown. And, in March, Britain’s Science and Technology Committee said that countries should not be allowed to engage in geoengineering without consulting the UN.

NASA
CRYSTAL-FACE
The Cirrus Regional Study of Tropical Anvils and Cirrus Layers - Florida Area Cirrus Experiment
www.espo.nasa.gov...
www.espo.nasa.gov...

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities warm our climate. Two effects of this warming are the increase of clouds and the rise of water vapor in the atmosphere. Both of these in turn influence the impacts of the man-made gases on global warming. Clouds can reflect the sun rays away from the surface, cooling the climate, but they also act as “blankets,” trapping sun’s radiative heat. These various interactions are complex and not fully understood. However, the processes are crucial in determining the eventual overall effect of manmade greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. The detailed measurements from the Crystal-Face mission will assist in improving our climate models. Six aircraft will be equipped with state-of-the-art instruments to measure characteristics of clouds and how clouds alter the atmosphere’s temperature. These measurements will be compared with ground based radars, satellites, and the results of advanced atmospheric models, in order to improve our ability to forecast future climate change. This large multi-agency experiment will unite seven NASA centers, NOAA, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, Office of Naval Research, U.S. Weather Research Program, Universities and other government weather researchers in this well coordinated study of our environment.

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails (Revised
coto2.wordpress.com...

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

reply to post by DJW001


Did you actually read what you posted?

It just says aerosol injecting won't replace CO2 abatement.

First, substituting aerosol geoengineering for CO2 abatement can be an economically ineffective strategy

YOUR QUOTE

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Did you actually read what you posted?

It just says aerosol injecting won't replace CO2 abatement.

First, substituting aerosol geoengineering for CO2 abatement can be an economically ineffective strategy

CO2 abatement means reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity. This is done by placing limits on how much CO2 factories can produce, cap and trade systems, that sort of thing. Aerosol injection will not replace these measures BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE!

You are quoting a paper that recommends against geo-engineering as though it proves that geo-engineering is actually taking place.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan

 

I guess it depends which side of the MSM you get your news from. The article you provided is based on an old 2005 IPCC report from climate model studies. It's not exactly up to date and accurate is it.

www.dcbureau.org...

The World of Geoengineering

With Bill Gates’ cloud-whitening experiment recently in the news, alarm bells are sounding around the world. Gates provided a U.S.-based research body, Silver Lining, with $300,000 to develop machines which would convert seawater into microscopic particles that could be sprayed in clouds to increase the whiteness, or albedo. The clouds would reflect more sunlight back into space, thereby, theoretically cooling the planet.

What is so shocking about this research – the largest known attempt at engineering the climate – is that these scientists and engineers need no permission to go from research to execution. There are currently no laws prohibiting atmospheric geoengineering projects. ...snipped the rest...

and now even this is out of date since the UN Conventrion of Biodiversity introduced the moratorium on geo-engineering (that might affect biodiversity) last year - your article is dated June 2010, the protocol was agreed in October.

See - www.newscientist.com...



And this bit:

Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails (Revised
coto2.wordpress.com...

“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

Again you are going into cloud seeding as chemtrials -

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails.

This blogger tries to mix up the bad science of the anonymous Case Orange "report"with cloud seeding to cover as many chem,trial bases as possible in the hope that some of them will stick.

down the end of the comments in the blog some of the problems and plaigiarism of Case Orange are highlighted.....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Since when has a flimsy thing like law, especially international law stopped our government, especially the alphabet soup kind, from doing anything they wanted?

reply to post by jdub297

Speak for yourself not for me.

I'll ask my own questions and keep my own opinions. You're free to do the same... for now. Sadly this option is fast disapearing in the U.S. thanks to the efforts of some...

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by DJW001

 

Did you actually read what you posted?

They repeatedly prove that they don't read or watch, or look at the links. Their not paid to do that... and have no real interest apparently...

I must admit I am finding more stuff from the links you post that your not even reference than the stuff you are referencing... sometimes even more damning than the stuff you post.

There is just soooo much stuff here.

To my mind there is little doubt is is going on. Barium for weapons systems/haarp, aluminum for radar blanket war games, and who knows what they are using for the geoengineering... probably So2 directly injected into the engines, but that part is just a conspiracy theory for now.

I grow weary of the mind games the peanut gallery play. I'll just wait for Dr. Thyme to respond.

I am amazed by all that you have dug up

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan

 

I guess it depends which side of the MSM you get your news from. The article you provided is based on an old 2005 IPCC report from climate model studies. It's not exactly up to date and accurate is it.

It's based on a new paper published in Nature, March 2011 - you can't get more up to date!

www.nature.com...

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

Do you ever actually read the citations and links you post here?

Our analysis suggests three main conclusions. First, substituting aerosol geoengineering
for CO2 abatement can be an economically ineffective strategy. One key to this finding is
that a failure to sustain the aerosol forcing can lead to sizeable and abrupt climatic
changes. The monetary damages due to such a discontinuous aerosol geoengineering can
dominate the cost-benefit analysis because the monetary damages of climate change are
expected to increase with the rate of change. Second, the relative contribution of aerosol
geoengineering to an economically optimal portfolio hinges critically on so far deeply
uncertain estimates of the damages due to aerosol forcing. Even if we assume that
aerosol forcing could be deployed continuously, the aerosol geoengineering does not
considerably displace CO2 abatement in the simple economic optimal growth model until
the damages due to the aerosol forcing are rather low. Third, substituting aerosol
geoengineering for greenhouse gas emission abatement can fail an ethical test regarding
intergenerational justice.

Your own source.

Also, why are you bringing chaff into a thread about geo-engineering? Chaff is an electronic counter-measure used to confuse radar. What does that have to do with geo-engineering?

Do you read what you post???
You need to read past your bold type..
It's not the cost of the program but the monetary effect on the ground,mainly due to global warming such geoengineering may cause that they are discussing..

If this spraying is taking place and,as some assume, is an attack on the population,then that makes perfect sense..

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by DJW001

 

They were in FACT referring to the damage such spraying would cause the planet..

Not in the piece quoted above

There is no mention of any damage to the planet resulting from the spraying. Only that one of the reasons such an operation is unlikely to be economically viable is the climatic consequences if the spraying is not sustained.

Attention:

Debate the topic and not the person. That is the way things are done on ATS. Failure to do so can lead to loss of posting ability until that is fully understood.

Carry on.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


This is an interesting call from the UN, I think JW mentioned it earlier. Unfortunately they seem to be the good guys then push agenda 21 in the next breath... see-saw politics at it's best...

They even got a picture of a "chemtrail"! lol.. it's a plane spraying sea salt into the clouds... of all possible "geoengineering (aka chemtrails)" this doesn't seem such a bad one. But I still question the need for geoengineering at all. It seems to be a way to push Agenda 21 and also to make billions...

Interesting they say "geoengineering (aka chemtrails)"...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acfde4d9b6c8.jpg[/atsimg]
An agricultural aircraft flies over Prachuab Khirikhan in a bid to seed clouds, about 300 km (186 miles) south of Bangkok, April 4, 2007.

REUTERS: U.N. urged to freeze climate

geo-engineering projects (aka Chemtrails)

Credit: Reuters/Sukree Sukplang
By Chisa Fujioka

NAGOYA, Japan | Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:55am EDT

NAGOYA, Japan (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.

"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.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Wow, there's a lot on those Reuters and NASA websites!

Sorry here is the link to that article. The quote was from the bottom of page 1.

us biodiversity factbox
They are pushing Agenda 21 hard!

A 20-point "strategic plan" to safeguard biodiversity includes the following goals for 2020:

- At least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 percent of coastal and marine areas are conserved

On a positive note, the scientists insistance that we not geoengineer seems to be getting their point across. Cudo's for those scientists for sticking to their guns... alleged black op programs from our government like Project Cloverleaf not withstanding....

GEO-ENGINEERING

Delegates agreed to expand a 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization, in which large areas are sprinkled with iron or other nutrients to artificially spur growth of phytoplankton, which soak up carbon dioxide.

Other geo-engineering projects, such as those that try to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, will also not take place until science can justify such activities and risks for the environment are considered.

Small scale scientific research studies conducted in controlled settings will be excluded. A footnote also said the term geo-engineering would exclude the capture and storage underground of carbon emissions from power stations and refineries.

paper 1 nasa dot gov
These are some amazing link's you have found Mat!!!!

Here's one paper which shows they at least have the aircraft for aerosol recording because they are doing test That means the debunkers assertion that there are no planes capable of recording aerosols in the air is wrong. NASA has them and is testing. Makes you wonder WHY they are testing for aerosols.... not that they would admit they are spraying them... just testing to monitor levels... things that make you go... hmmm.

ABSTRACT
We will provide measurements of aerosol number density, volatility, size distribution and optical properties aboard the NASA DC-8 during INTEX. These measurements will be conducted in close collaboration with the University of Hawaii (Antony Clarke, PI) and will provide detailed information on ambient in-situ aerosol microphysical properties in conjunction with on-board real-time assessments of the underlying physio-chemical characteristics.

There are several similar papers from your link.

reply to post by pianopraze

Here's one paper which shows they at least have the aircraft for aerosol recording because they are doing test

Aircraft have been used for atmospheric testing that is more accurate than the balloon tests they'd previously been limited to.

There's nothing sinister in finding out what is floating in the air. Is it the word "aerosol" that frightens people who don't understand what is being studied? You are surrounded by natural and industrial aerosols all the time. You create them when you cook, vacuum, garden, drive or barbecue.

You and Mat seem to imply that being able to measure this stuff is somehow cause for concern or "proof" of an evil scheme. Why?

Why don't you get some of their results? Many are taken directly from contrails! The results of the "testing programs" for atmospheric aerosol composition are NOT SECRET!
You can go to any of the testing/sampling programs (SUCCESS, INTEX, FIRE II, et c.) and get the raw data. See what they are finding, if you are scared or just suspicious or even curious.

That means the debunkers assertion that there are no planes capable of recording aerosols in the air is wrong.

First, that generalization borders on a "straw man." There is no group of people organized or classified as "debunkers." (Except those who point out unfounded conclusions. They are lumped into some vague "debunkers" group, when a more accurate title would be "reasoners" or "observers" or "readers.")

Second, the people in this thread who continue to point out flawed logic, misrepresentations of studies and reports, do not "assert that there are no planes capable of recording" ANYTHING!

NASA has them and is testing.

Has for decades! How do you think we KNOW what really is in contrails or cirrus, or stratocumulus? They test and refine their instruments for better accuracy. Why do you oppose greater accuracy in testing? What makes that bad?

Makes you wonder WHY they are testing for aerosols....

Why? To see what all the stuff that really is going into the atmosphere does and how we can avoid it or its ill effect. Isn't that a good thing? What is it about analyzing our air for the constitution of the particles floating around in it that is secret or harmful?

.. just testing to monitor levels... things that make you go... hmmm.

Would you rather NOT know?
Would you rather just imagine?

What is wrong with MORE knowledge?

dent ignorance
jw

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

 

W

Here's one paper which shows they at least have the aircraft for aerosol recording because they are doing test That means the debunkers assertion that there are no planes capable of recording aerosols in the air is wrong.

There is no such assertion - "debunkers" have "always" known there are aircraft that go and test the air - one of the first so-called "chemplanes" that chemmies went into a tizz about was this one:



It's the chemmies who do not believe there are a/c for testing the atmosphere - they think all such aircraft are making chemtrails!!

NASA has them and is testing. Makes you wonder WHY they are testing for aerosols.

Probably something to do with knowing more about the atmosphere, how it works, why it works - you know - real science to discover real knowledge!

Those who will see will see... I'm not bickering with the peanut gallery with an agenda.


They've had these aircraft from at least 2004 when they did this study:

Abstract
We propose to deploy an intensive cloud and aerosol observing system to the ARM Climate Research Facility’s (ACRF) North Slope of Alaska (NSA) locale for three weeks in April 2008. This period has been chosen because it is during the International Polar Year when many ancillary observing systems will be collecting data that will be synergistic for interpreting the Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) data. It also provides an important contrast with the October 2004 Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE). We will require 30 to 45 hours of flight time for an aircraft capable of measuring temperature, humidity, total particle number, aerosol size distribution, aerosol hygroscopicity, cloud condensation nuclei concentration, ice nuclei concentration, optical scattering and absorption, updraft velocity, cloud liquid water and ice contents, cloud droplet and crystal size distributions, cloud particle shape, and cloud extinction. In addition to these aircraft measurements, we propose surface deployment of a spectroradiometer for retrieving cloud optical depth and effective radius.

source

They were using satellites to try to do this in 2000:

Aerosol Influence on Cloud Microphysics Examined by Satellite Measurements and Chemical Transport Modeling
ABSTRACT
Anthropogenic aerosols are hypothesized to decrease cloud drop radius and increase cloud droplet number concentration enhancing cloud optical depth and albedo. Here results have been used from a chemical transport model driven by the output of a numerical weather prediction model to identify an incursion of sulfate-laden air from the European continent over the mid–North Atlantic under the influence of a cutoff low pressure system during 2–8 April 1987. Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) measurements of visible and near-infrared radiance are used to infer microphysical properties of low-altitude (T 􏰆 260–275 K) maritime clouds over the course of the event. Examination of the cloud optical depth, drop radius, and drop number concentration on the high- and low-sulfate days has allowed identification of the increase in cloud droplet number concentration and decrease in cloud drop radius associated with the sulfate incursion. These observations are consistent with the Twomey mechanism of indirect radiative forcing of climate by aerosols

source
DOE Atmospheric Science Program


Not only are they using satellites and airplanes to examine the aerosols, but also lasers from the ground (Lidar specifically). I have previously shown that all the NEXRAD systems in our country have been updated to prevent detection of aerosols and only show water now. Previously they could show aerosols when configured for that:

Project Overview: Cumulus Humilis Aerosol Processing Study (CHAPS) Proposed Summer 2007 ASP Field Campaign

Abstract
This white paper presents the scientific motivation and preliminary logistical plans for a proposed ASP field campaign to be carried out in the summer of 2007. The primary objective of this campaign is to use the DOE Gulfstream-1 aircraft to make measurements characterizing the chemical, physical and optical properties of aerosols below, within and above large fields of fair weather cumulus and to use the NASA Langley Research Center’s High Spectral Resolution Lidar (HSRL) to make independent measurements of aerosol backscatter and extinction profiles in the vicinity of these fields. Separate from the science questions to be addressed by these observations will be information to add in the development of a parameterized cumulus scheme capable of including multiple cloud fields within a regional or global scale model. We will also be able to compare and contrast the cloud and aerosol properties within and outside the Oklahoma City plume to study aerosol processes within individual clouds. Preliminary discussions with the Cloud and Land Surface Interaction Campaign (CLASIC) science team have identified overlap between the science questions posed for the CLASIC Intensive Operation Period (IOP) and the proposed ASP campaign, suggesting collaboration would benefit both teams.

source

Videos
This video has whistleblower testimony that there is current ongoing. So the peanut gallery who say that there are not whistleblowers are wrong. People are seeing planes loop around and go back and forth. Also in this video the military admits to chemical weapons tests. Mat has that documented thoroughly in other places, maybe when he gets back he can annotate.


What is Wrong With Our Skies? [Lecture by William Thomas]
Credibly journalist researching the Governments biological studies that he ran into after coming back from the Gulf War. They have admitted to doing biological tests on the populous. Even if they don't they have a long history which I've previously mentioned:


This one is in reference to the last comment on the last paper above. The weather ballon data is even more fascinating to me than the radar. There have been people all over the country who have been checking weather ballon data on days they see what they call spraying which shows persistent contrails should not exist. The peanut galleries response? "Magic layers of air that just don't show up on the weather balloons" while remotely possible it beleaguers belief that they happen at the rate being observed: