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

reply to post by pianopraze


I wanted to post these two videos to help describe the mentality of people who might be behind these kind of operations and that it may not be for our own good.

The Secret Covenant of the Illuminati

The Secret Covenant of the Jewish Secret Society Known As the Order of the Illuminati: as Read on Dallas Debt Discussion by Tad on 9-6-2010 This text came from The Bankindex who claim NOT to know who he or she is. The piece came in through one of their forms and the Author left an unusable e-mail address.

Full Episode Download: www.talkshoe.com...

Text: www.illuminati-news.com...

The Secret Covenant of the Illuminati www.illuminati-news.com...

Audio www....(nolink)/?381c7c181ecks3l

Ring of Power: Empire of the City-Full Length Documentary
5 hour Documentary

From the mystery religions of ancient Egypt to the Zionist role in 9/11, "Ring of Power -- Empire of the City -- 4,000 Years of Suppressed History" puzzles together the missing pieces of our human story. Find out how an Illuminati network of international bankers and European royalty have turned the world's nations and citizens into their debt slaves.

Please support the producers: www.helpfreetheearth.com...

Part 1: 9/11 The Untold Story
Half the world believes Muslims were responsible for 9/11. The other half believes it was Israeli Zionists. Who is right?

Part 2: Hidden Empire
The world's most powerful empire is not the USA. It is an empire that insiders call "Empire Of The City"

Part 3: Trail Of The Pharaohs
Did the Biblical Abraham really live to be 175? Did Moses really turn staffs into snakes and rivers into blood?

Part 4: God And The Queen
Genealogy charts show that British and French royalty are descendants of Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Is it true?

Part 5: All The Queen's Men
How rich and powerful is Queen Elizabeth II?

Part6: The Godfathers
They scammed control of the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve, then they found God-Gold, Oil and Drugs.

Part 7: Cheating At Monopoly
How many people would play a game of monopoly if the banker was cheating and fixing the rules? Over 6 billion.

Part 8: Asses Of Evil
The New World Order MAFIA are invisible rulers who make puppets out of politicians and heroes out of villains.

Part 9: King Of Hearts
The ultimate goal of "insiders" is to disarm the world and create one world empire under one world ruler. Who is he?

Part 10: Solutions
Protesting and writing letters to deaf politicians doesn't work. What does work?

This video uses copyrighted material in a manner that does not require approval of the copyright holder. It is a fair use under copyright law.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

The media material presented in this production is protected by the FAIR USE CLAUSE of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, which allows for the rebroadcast of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and education.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I'll try to get through these, but I try to avoid "illuminatiti" as it seems much like "chemtrail" as a way to make those who discuss globalists as appearing overly conspiratorial.

The globalists have their conspiracies... but they slip up and expose themselves time and time again such as David Rockefeller who freely admitted he was working against the united states and was part of a globalist cabal working to bring about a one world order... look at the quote in my signature from his biography.

Or Ted turner admitting he wants a 95% population reduction...

On and on. They have the money to hire the smartest people on earth... but they are not the smartest people on earth. That is why there are so many leaks. The smart people take their money but let the information out because they have a conscience.

reply to post by pianopraze


I agree that the term globalist is a better way to describe the people and their agenda. I don't like using terms like NWO or Iluminate either and just mentioning free masons seems to set off another nerve in people. No one group should be singled out. The globalists are in a sense pirates who don't have their roots in any location, nationality or race. They are the bankers and the elite from many nations and many cultures.

The first video is a good description of any of the globalists who might be in support of eugenics or depopulation.

The second video is very long. But IMO it is very complete in it's coverage of the issues of globalization.

United States Government Accountability Office
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, House of Representatives

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

www.gao.gov... Read Page 62 and 63

Examples of SRM approaches in the study include the following: • increasing the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through activities such as painting building roofs white, planting more reflective crops or biomass, or covering desert surfaces with reflective material; • increasing the reflectivity of the atmosphere by whitening clouds over the ocean or injecting reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere to scatter sunlight; and • space-based methods to use shielding materials to reflect or deflect incoming solar radiation.

Publications by Alan Robock on geoengineering
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu...

Hi Pianopraze/ Mathias/ BurnTheShips/ BackInBlack (and everyone else..!)

Wanted to say how refreshing it is to come across a thread on this topic where we're free to discuss the facts and share the information - without getting bogged down in the 'game within a game'.

I will review all the info presented thus far and come back with some contributions, hopefully over the next week or so - I'll have to diarise some time for proper research, as to my shame I ended up stepping back from the topic, mainly due to the hassle we were getting on here, but also because of an unusual and very clear threat from a subversive element (standing on derelict land next to our property, pretending to be local youths).. The threat was directly related to my interest in this topic.

I had planned to make a thread on that experience - in defiance of their arrogance. However, after my wife discovered my intentions (I'd saved a draft email with the text for that thread) she talked me out of it. We have children, after all, so I understood her concerns. I will make reference to the details of that experience at some point this week anyway - I have renewed confidence in certain assurances I've received from particular sources in recent weeks (sorry to be so vague at this point...)


********************************************


Incidentally, earlier this evening, I took a couple of snaps of what appeared to be some very interesting cloud manipulation (including a trail that was a perfect DNA-like helix) using my IPhone camera as I walked to the local supermarket with our dog. While the pics won't show the level of resolution necessary to properly contextualise the oddness of the colour/texture of the cloud bank, it really did seem 'off' somehow; denser than usual, colour not quite right considering the weather conditions we've had in recent days (I know that sounds a bit weak, and I apologise - it is very hard to explain the precise nature of such ephemeral anomalies).

Shortly after taking the pics (a few hundred yards further down the road) I saw a small, unmarked plane at low altitude, apparently circling round from the region where the anomalous cloud edges were, and it appeared to have some sort of attachments on the underside, separate from the engines. It wasn't spraying anything at the time I saw it - and unfortunately I wasn't in a position to get a picture through trees/buildings..

The odd formations appeared shortly before the night drew in; as I walked back from the supermarket twenty minutes later it was already dark. I concluded that if any manipulation had taken place, it was done strategically at the very end of the daylight - in order that people would be unable to discern the strangeness of what had taken place.

I'll add the pics shortly.


********************************************


Also to note - has anyone else noticed 'metallic' clouds before? Here in North-West England (South Manchester) I was driving home, around a week ago, and up ahead there were what appeared to be ordinary jet trails, mixed in with cirrus clouds - but at the end of one of the trails was a sort of 'splurge' of luminescent, rainbow-shimmering particulate/cloud. If you imagine a translucent sheen of multicolour on the tarmac, after it's rained on a patch of leaked oil, the cloud bore a resemblance to such an effect (though lower contrast of colour/ much brighter, allowing light to refract through).

It looked as though some metallic/ oil-based substance (of whatever nature) had been jettisoned for some reason. It looked totally anomalous, but because I was driving I was unable to photograph it - by the time I got home it had been covered over by regular clouds. Very strange indeed... I suppose it could have been a regular fuel jettison, but I've never seen one so couldn't tell for sure - plus it was over a heavily populated area so I assume it would be illegal to do that (??)


********************************************


Geoengineering discussions are the way forward! I was intrigued by the nature of Chadwickus' contribution and his linked thread. His OP in that thread echoes what Network Dude said recently in a different thread (can't recall which one) - a disclaimer of sorts, regarding the "Is geoengineering happening now, has it happened before, or is it being planned..???" questions, which are - to my mind - quite pivotal in providing the context for the debate.


********************************************


My assumption - on reading everything posted thus far - is that collectively, we are trying hard to avoid arguments in this thread; long may it continue. I concur with your assessment Pianopraze, regarding the surprisingly muted response form the skeptic community on this thread. Great thread - S&F for you!

All the best to everyone involved, and keep up the good work.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


I understand your concerns. I am also having some personal problems that I am suspicious about. The timing of events seems to be too ironic to just be a coincidence.

My landlord recently has asked me to move after being a loyal tenant for over 3 years. He told me that his property at a different location is possibly going to be foreclosed.

He was very apologetic and offered me a good reference. But my gut tells me that he was threatened or persuaded to make this decision because we have had a very good tenant landlord relationship the entire time I've lived here.

After only 1 or 2 months of me deeply investigating this topic and speaking out. I already seem to be getting the backlash and repercussions from TPTB. If it is not all just an ironic coincidence, then I assume they think that making me relocate will derail me and prevent me from future investigation and contributing to public awareness.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Sorry for your problems, I concur with the wifey... probably is best not to talk about it here.

When I was in the original thread with Burntheships discussing What In The World Are They Spraying, Phage changed and created a new thread and then proceded to pull all the horrible tricks that we have pointed out over and over. So I think for the time being I'll stick to this thread to discuss geoengineering. Also the useual trolling has not begun.

They want to avoid geoengineering like the plague and stick to "chemtrails" which is telling. Notice how so often the language gets shifted. Geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol dispersant are not terms they like to use. There is evidence that they are purposefully trying to remove it from the textbooks. Mat's video was an absolute goldmine. This lady has so much extremely good information:

Burntheships provided this lovely Canadian research paper which discusses such things as how they can use get engines to introduce So2 directly into the jet engines to disperse the sulfer into the contrails without the need of spraying nozzles. So those geoengineering deniers who suggest that geonengineering can not be done through the contrails are wrong.: candian study

In the case of the present system, a significant quantity of sulfuric acid will be stored on the aircraft and ejected into the atmosphere during flight. This liquid could be injected into the engine to provide additional thrust at high altitudes to combat thrust lapse. As discussed in the previous section elevated sulfur content is detrimental to engine com- ponent life, and consequently traditional liquid injection techniques (compressor inlet injection) would not be appropriate for this system. However, some thrust augmentation may be realizable by injecting the sulfuric acid downstream of the turbine, in a manner similar to a modern afterburner. By this approach, to achieve thrust increases the tur- bine exhaust gases must be hot enough to vaporize the sulfuric acid.

Also in that paper they have even done spray test to find out the correct size of the particles to spray:

Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting H2SO4 allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of incoming flux. For the purposes of this study, we have assumed the geoengineering payload is a liquid with a density of 1000 kg/m3 (In gas pipe analysis, a density of 1.22 kg/m^3 is assumed), emitted as a vapor. The larger geoengineering particles, the faster they settle out of the atmosphere. If they are too small, they do not effectively scatter incoming solar flux. The peak scattering effectiveness of H2SO4 aerosols is about 0.2 microns (Mie theory).

They also show it is relatively cheap and they have 747 planes modified and dumping 3 tons per year for only 7 billion the first year and 2.8 each year after that:

A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:

Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of 0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year

Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of 0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year

Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of 0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year

The stratosphere, which starts at 5 miles in the polar regions and 6 miles in the equatorial region, is between 26k-164k feet. I've seen several debunkers claim that geoengineering could not happen because planes could not make it to these regions. This is patently false as this paper shows:

Aurora believes that aircraft propulsion system technology may be grouped in four cate- gories based on maximum operational altitude: 1) up to 13.7 km (45 kft); 2) between 13.7 and 19.8 km (45 and 65 kft); 3) between 19.8 and 24.4 km (65 and 80 kft); 4) above 24.4 km (80 kft). To extend a system’s maximum operational altitude from one category into the next requires a step change in technology as well as cost...

An “off-the-shelf” turbofan propulsion system may be used to propel an aircraft intended to operate at a maximum altitude of 45 kft or less...

To improve performance and extend the altitude ceiling above 45 kft to about 65 kft, ex- isting turbofans may be modified through a combination of component development, operational modification, and engine testing to characterize performance. For example, the Rolls-Royce AE3007 engine, which is used on the Embraer 135/140/145 family of aircraft, is modified (AE3007H) for high altitude operation up to 70 kft...

General Electric’s F118-GE-101 engine17 used in the U-2 aircraft, which has a stated altitude limit greater than 70 kft...

Aurora has been developing a propulsion concept called the Hydrazine Decomposition Air Turbine (HDAT) to enable aircraft operation at these high altitudes.... Preliminary development suggests that the system could operate reliably up to 100 kft....

In other words, the technology exists today. They can get it into the lower reaches with off the shelf technology on these 747s with more money for research they could go even higher.

Mat provided the GAO paper above suggesting injecting So2 particles, mirroring the Canadian paper:

injecting reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere to scatter sunlight

And here are several CFR papers on almost all aspects of geoengineering: CFR website.
They even told the CFR it was not hard or expensive to do contradicting so many geoengineering debunkers:

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. There is clear evidence from many large past volcanic eruptions that this mechanism can cool the planet (Mount Pinatubo produced global scale cooling of about 0.5°C). This is not hard to do, nor all that expensive. David Keith has suggested that it should be possible to create microscopic reflecting composite particles that would be self- orienting and self-levitating, and thus might not have to be replaced very frequently.

Bottom line
It is probably safe to assume that the direct monetary cost of geoenginering would be at least 100 times less than the cost of a full program of GHG abatement...and perhaps much cheaper than that.
Because it is relatively cheap, a nation that had not done much abatement, but started experiencing serious climate impacts, might be tempted to unilaterally engage in albedo-modifying geoengineering.

Their cost estimate? "between $100 million and $100 billion per year" which agrees with the Canadian study.

Easy to do, we have the technology off the shelf... and it is even relatively inexpensive. The So2 could be sprayed directly into the engines so it comes out in the contrails.

So many "chemtrail debunking myths" answered so quickly when we change the terms from chemtrail spraying to geoengineering and "injecting reflective aerosol particles into the stratosphere"... it's all hidden right in plain sight.

So we need to absolutely insist on using the correct terminology of geoengineering and stratospheric injection of reflective aerosols. Not "chemtrails" or "spraying" which are technically wrong. If you watch the debunkers many are obviously aware of this by the wording of their posts and the way they try to shift the terminology.

In a war of information and ideas, vocabulary and precise vernacular are weapons. They do not want to fight the war on our ground so they try to shift and twist using the techniques we by now know so well:
25 rules
eight traits
Alinsky method thread

reply to post by pianopraze

As you all have so eloquently demonstrated here is the hard science papers. Here are the political actions. Here is where the fight needs to take place. We need to, like the lady in Mat's video, refuse to use the term chemtrail and always shift to geoengineering.

By focusing on real published studies and real identifiable actions you will raise this topic out of the fantasy world that "chemtrails" so easily steps into.

Unfortunately, there are some who cannot or will not rely on legitimate science and objective research as support for such an important topic.

I am convinced that people, organizations and governments are looking at geoengineering from many different, and not always benign, perspectives.

But, when the first posts on this thread resort to Youtube and people who have been shown to be self-promoting charlatans, you slip back into the morass of hearsay, speculation and rank hypocrisy that dominate the threads/forums from which you seem to be distancing yourself.

My guess is that this thread will be hijacked -- not by anti-"chemtrail" debunkers, but by the incurable fearmongers who will turn this into validation for their misbegotten belief that any effort to give mankind more control of his environment is nefarious, secret and kept under wraps by "TPTB."

As you yourself have noted, there are literally thousands of public records, discussions, forum and studies of the topic. This is no secret.

Will it turn out to benefit all nations, or give some an "edge" over others? Those are the type of issues for this forum, not some hypothetical stretch into fantasy.

My personal belief is that hubris drives too much of this quest, without an objective assessment of what can be accomplished on a smaller, more localized scale. Too often, the proposals attempt to leap from a simple concept to a global refinement of natural forces.

The biomass of plankton and of insects far outweigh that of homo sapiens. I do not believe man will ever be capable of changing the climate or the environment on a global scale. Every time we abandon a "catastrophe." nature rushes in to reclaim what we've temporarily fouled-up. We are NOT that significant in the grand scheme of things. To think otherwise is pure hubris. Hubris has and will always lead to our comeuppance. We give ourselves far too much credit.

If we were to focus geoengineering to local problems and realizable goals, we will see life made better and easier for people who would not otherwise benefit.

This is your thread. Try to keep it on topic. It could be very enlightening; or we can watch videos of tinfoil hat people.

jw

reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Let's not assume anything. There are all sorts of turning points in our life. Just use them as springboards for a better tomorrow. A door closing means another one is opening. We learn the most sometimes from the difficulties. Maybe this is the opportunity to assess your situation and move in a more positive or new direction

You are obviously quite intelligent and have lots of emotional resources to draw from.

Keep up the great work

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

at the end of one of the trails was a sort of 'splurge' of luminescent, rainbow-shimmering particulate/cloud. If you imagine a translucent sheen of multicolour on the tarmac, after it's rained on a patch of leaked oil, the cloud bore a resemblance to such an effect

These are actually quite common and sometimes quite beautiful. You can see them if you are patient and look for the right circumstances.

They multi-color effect is the result of sunlight being refracted by the ice crystals making up the clouds. An hour or two or three before sunset or after sunrise, when the sun is at a low angle to your line of sight, are the bast times, although they can be observed even overhead. That can be hard on your eyes, so I wouldn't recommend it.

Keep up your observations. You may be interested in a brand new book about "Cloud Collecting" that I cannot name due to ATS' t&c restrictions on adverts. It is by one of your fellow Britons who has published a couple of other lengthy treatises on clouds. This one though, is more of a field guide, and replete with photo examples.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Star for you.

Please feel free to contribute articles on geoengineering.

I think we need a whole forum on geoengineering as stratospheric injection of aerosol particulates is only one means,just obviously the most discussed. Geoengineering is definitely not highly speculative as it has, as you say, thousands of papers an annual current operating budget in millions or billions in the US alone, as pointed out in the GAO study Mat linked above.

Geoengineering definitely does not belong in skunkworks.

Originally posted by burntheships
I hope this discussion does bring about some positive results.

Many threads on Geoengineering are left to stand in the other forums, as they should be.

Anything less is a travesty, as geoengineering is real, has been carried out already to some degree.

Proof of that is here in this thread, even has an article from Reuters:
United Nations Urged To Freeze Climate Geo Engineering Projects
[Size=4]U.N. Urged To Freeze Climate Geo Engineering Projects
www.reuters.com
The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate
A Future Tense Event: Geoengineering The Horrifying Idea Whose Time has Come?

Above Top Secret
www.guardian.co.uk
royalsociety.org
www.pnas.org
www.guardian.co.uk

You have an incredible amount of links here I just wanted to collect them in one place for future reference. I went to the thread you link to and grabbed the ones from there also. So here is a ontopic repost from me followed by tons of links by you:

my post:

There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere , that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed

www.cfr.org...
Starting on page 11 he rings his allegorical hands at the fact that nations that want to do it will unlikely be stopped. Woe is the poor little powerless CFR

Starting on page 12
He suggests that

set norms about responsible geoengineering. This approach would recognize that international law is weak (especially when inconvenient), but norms can be powerful if they become internalized within the communities that might contemplate geoengineering. Historically, similar norms emerged around the deployment of nuclear weapons—for example, against the “first use” of nuclear weapons and against reckless testing of weapons—and probably helped reduce the danger of nuclear war. Important norms have emerged about safe testing and deployment of genetically engineered crops.

Ibed
I've yet to see any safe GMO's but that's another thread.

So what did they discuss??? How to stop it??? Nope. How to set "norms"... in other words, they have no intention of stopping it. They just want complete control over the teams that do it.

At the workshop we should discuss what norms should govern geoengineering and how they might gain widespread adherence.

Getting all relevant nations to adhere to such norms may be especially difficult.

...geoengineering seems to be so inexpensive that large NGOs and rich individuals could do these things on their own.

They even admit that a rich enough individual could do it on his own. Bill gates, Grand Cayman, and mosquitos comes to mind, but they've got the spin going full blast on that one.

Lord Help us from these globalists.

This whole paper is a very subtle mind conditioning. If you anyone knows enough about the way to lead someone down a certain path with psychology... they will recognize it here. You say "oh how horrible this must be... (someone thinks stopped....) controlled" and then you subtly say how bad it would be to do it... but instead of focusing on stopping it you work on ways of doing it... and suggest it's even possible for individuals to do... which becomes almost a subtle invitation to do it... because of course it's going to get done anyways... so we must regulate it... by the end you're subconsciously thinking it is a necessary evil and must be done.

So far from being the good guys, they are the advocates for this... with their total globalists control, of course.
************
Data dump blatantly stealing links from BTS's thread:

You are aware that they deem the spraying from modified 747's to be one of the most effective and safe methods of Geo Engineering.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3ea4a89e95f9.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/af22587ccaa1.png[/atsimg]
Displaying estimated effectiveness versus "safety" for twelve geoengineering approaches. Based on data in the Royal Society Geoengineering the climate report -
2020science.org...
Above Top Secret

*******
your links:
www.reuters.com
The Powerful Coalition That Wants To Engineer The World's Climate
G Edward Griffin Exposes Conspiracy - Monsanto's Aluminum Resistant Seeds and Geoengineering
morphcity link 1
morphcity link 2
environmentalleader
patriotsforamerica
Above Top Secret thread
bibliotecapleyades
archive org
abovetopsecret 2
***********

Hopefully we can make this thread a great place to grab info on geoengineering. Thanks for all your hard work BTS!

Thank you and others for this work on what is a good idea for discussion parameters TO ACTUALLY MAKE PROGRESS. Being derailed on these topics was always a death sentence for threads. Also, have you heard from the doctor from What In The World Are They Spraying ? I emailed him and haven't heard anything. I know he was having problems (fishy) with his comp...

Lord Help us from these globalists.

You know that's right!

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

 

When I was in the original thread with Burntheships discussing What In The World Are They Spraying, Phage changed and created a new thread and then proceded to pull all the horrible tricks that we have pointed out over and over. So I think for the time being I'll stick to this thread to discuss geoengineering.

What is this, bait and switch?

Calling the "chemtrail" fantasy doesn't change the nature of the discussion.

So, you immediately revert to "WITWATS," which is thoroughly worthless as "research" and has absolutely nothing to do with real-world geoengineering.

I should've known better than to get my hopes up for a rational debate.

They want to avoid geoengineering like the plague and stick to "chemtrails" which is telling.

You're doing it to yourselves! It's like the elephant in the room, or "He whose name may not be spoken." A rose by any other name is still a rose. Can't you get away from this idiotic obsession with it?

Geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol dispersant are not terms they like to use.

Except, you immediately revert from "stratospheric" to tropospheric altitudes where you can fit the SO2 studies to commercial flight paths.
If you are truly studying aerosol geoengineering, then you know that the focus is on levels far above normal cruising altitudes; the whole idea is to keep the aerosols airborne!

Burntheships provided this lovely Canadian research paper which discusses such things as how they can use get engines to introduce So2 directly into the jet engines to disperse the sulfer into the contrails without the need of spraying nozzles. So those geoengineering deniers who suggest that geonengineering can not be done through the contrails are wrong.

That is NOT what the paper is about, and you'd know that if you read it. I have. And where is there a reference in the paper to contrails?

The goal of this study is to use engineering design and cost analysis to determine the feasibility and cost of a delivering material to the stratosphere for solar radiation management (SRM). This study does not examine effectiveness or risks of injecting material into the stratosphere for SRM. Its goal is simply to compare a range of delivery systems on a single cost basis.

candian study(AuroraGeoReport)

They also show it is relatively cheap and they have 747 planes modified and dumping 3 tons per year for only 7 billion the first year and 2.8 each year after that

Again, if you read the paper, you'd see that they have NO 747s and that those they propose for modification would NOT be able to reach the altitudes where SRM is most effective. Relatively cheap? Up to $100,000,000,000 per year?

This is only a speculative study of costs, not effectiveness! Didn't you read anything?

Did you also forget that they propose an equatorial implementation? Where do you think their "target range" of 30 degrees N and 30 degrees S is?

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. There is clear evidence from many large past volcanic eruptions that this mechanism can cool the planet (Mount Pinatubo produced global scale cooling of about 0.5°C). This is not hard to do, nor all that expensive. David Keith has suggested that it should be possible to create microscopic reflecting composite particles that would be self- orienting and self-levitating, and thus might not have to be replaced very frequently.

Again, stratospheric application and particles that stay aloft for months at a time. Far from what you allude to with contrails and tropospheric flight paths.

So we need to absolutely insist on using the correct terminology of geoengineering and stratospheric injection of reflective aerosols. Not "chemtrails" or "spraying" which are technically wrong.

Yes, you should, if you want to waste this thread on what might be possible as opposed to what many contend has been on-going for decades. All of the papers and studies so far are conjecture. Aren't we going to discuss what is going on?

Why waste this thread on mere supposition, when the examples of present-day alteration of the environment are all around you? Is it because they are not "secret" or that only a few of the "aware" really know what is going on? I thought this was going to be a rational discussion, not more straw-grasping and videos.

I should've known better.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by Clearskies
Thank you and others for this work on what is a good idea for discussion parameters TO ACTUALLY MAKE PROGRESS.

Being derailed on these topics was always a death sentence for threads. Also, have you heard from the doctor from What In The World Are They Spraying ? I emailed him and haven't heard anything. I know he was having problems (fishy) with his comp...

I sadly have not heard from the good doctor since a couple days after the ATS live broadcast. I will email him and invite him to come participate in this thread. I believe he needed to buy a new laptop as his other expired... suddenly. Maybe he will comment.

Please feel free to share all your geoengineering data and thoughts here.

And we're off! Wow, not much vehemence from you/sarcasm.

If you are truly studying aerosol geoengineering, then you know that the focus is on levels far above normal cruising altitudes; the whole idea is to keep the aerosols airborne!

What goes up must (usually, unless it breaks free and goes on into space ) come down.

reply to post by jdub297

Again, stratospheric application and particles that stay aloft for months at a time. Far from what you allude to with contrails and tropospheric flight paths.

What? The stratosphere starts as low as 26,000' depending on your location..
Well within flight path cruise heights..

Originally posted by jdub297
What is this, bait and switch?

Calling the "chemtrail" fantasy doesn't change the nature of the discussion.

Aren't we going to discuss what is going on?

reply to post by jdub297


ahh a very familiar pattern. Start so nice.. then shift to attack. I was waiting. True colors always come out.

Is this bait and switch? Hmm... Yes, you did bait and switch.

The switch to emotial goading is coming from you sir. We are very familiar in here with those techniques.

You called chemtrail "fantasy" not I. I said we need to keep the discussion on geoengineering and aerosol particulates. I note your switch to using chemtrail from aerosol particulate and geoengineering... another bait and switch.

I invited you to share your geoengineering data and links. You declined and instead attacked with very familiar patterns.

You obviously did not read my post much less the canadian paper which goes into great detail on 747 flying at 45k which is in well into the stratosphere, which i noted in my post. They also discuss the engines and research needed to get to the top of the stratosphere well above 100k.

On and on you twist and mislead.

What is going on: is you again use familiar techniques. Please post your geoengineering links not try to derail the thread with familiar techniques. Thank you

****
To all:

This is one of the reason I grabbed all of BTS links an posted them before all this wonderful peaceful polite discussion gets buried in trolling. Please post your geoengineering links here at the front before the get buried!

I will star all non trolling on either side of the debate in my thread. Once you have trolled I will not star. Please stay on topic without attack no matter what side of the discussion you take. Please do not use the techniques listed above if you are not otherwise obliged to do so for some reason.

Please don't feed the trolls that may appear. Let them rant and don't get pulled into an emotional arguments.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8316440cc62.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by pianopraze

They even admit that a rich enough individual could do it on his own. Bill gates, Grand Cayman, and mosquitos comes to mind, but they've got the spin going full blast on that one.

When you think about it, it doesn't take wealth to be a geo-engineer. When you fertilize soil, or eradicate pests, aren't you geoengineering on a small scale? However, I don't think there is any one person, family or NGO capable of even attempting a global effort.

Thus far, the only global propositions I see any analyses of are those for AGW mitigation.
By its very definition, this type of geoengineering excludes "chemtrails," so why do we keep sliding back toward that?

If global warming mitigation is the object, what is so nefarious about that? If it is real, and the "solution" feasible, why shouldn't someone be studying it and looking to a time when its implementation is seriously considered?

This whole paper is a very subtle mind conditioning. If you anyone knows enough about the way to lead someone down a certain path with psychology... they will recognize it here. You say "oh how horrible this must be... (someone thinks stopped....) controlled" and then you subtly say how bad it would be to do it... but instead of focusing on stopping it you work on ways of doing it... and suggest it's even possible for individuals to do... which becomes almost a subtle invitation to do it... because of course it's going to get done anyways... so we must regulate it... by the end you're subconsciously thinking it is a necessary evil and must be done.

I'm not, are you? Why such paranoia? Again, is this the thing about which no one should speak?
What makes it a "necessary evil?

Aren't there studies that exactly counter this, and point up the risks and uncertainties? Of course there are. Greenpeace is vehement in their criticism of the risks of certain anti-AGW strategies, among other groups..

Why does this thread focus on speculation for aerosol mitigation, but ignore the well-funded and well-thought out studies that say it can't or shouldn't be done? Didn't you want to avoid the "one-sided" discussion? Aren't you falling into it?

Please pull this thread back to a rational discussion of the pros and cons, instead of the "evil globalist" cabal so many are so afraid of. This borders on a straw-man situation, where you pick a theoretical "meanie" and attribute everything you fear to it.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

When you think about it, it doesn't take wealth to be a geo-engineer. When you fertilize soil, or eradicate pests, aren't you geoengineering on a small scale? However, I don't think there is any one person, family or NGO capable of even attempting a global effort.

Maybe you need to google Rothschild family wealth and get back to me on that.