Geoengineering Trials Get Under Way

reply to post by Deafseeingeyedog

Why test anything? Why not just sit back and let things happen?
I guess that's one possibility.

the problem is variables and uncertainty, as well as the fact this is clearly an experiment and not a deffinate fix, I had a feeling someone would mention volcano's being as suphfur is involved, but consider too much in one area can unbalance things, nature works in balance, in nearly all aspects, without going into quantum mechanics.. if you start tinkering about with the tuning of things you'll get feedback.

hope my view makes sense, im not against science but when it comes to things like this you've gotta think, if those scientists we're us, would you be damned certain you won't break something or would you be looking for a nice financial backer for more possibly less controversial ideas? me, i'd go with the former, but I know that as far as the industry goes money helps. unless you can handbuild electron microscopes and other shiny expensive wares.

idk man, I mean, you don't mess with nature, I thought that was unwritten rule 1 when it came to science. (ed: obviously the nuking the atmosphere thing is a wide exeption to the margin.)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Deafseeingeyedog

 

Why test anything? Why not just sit back and let things happen?
I guess that's one possibility.

There's a story that Atlantis was destroyed due to their attempts at climate control. A story is only a story, but doesn't mean we can't heed the warning.

reply to post by Phage


Thats not stopping them is it?

Even though they know its not going to solve the problems...

It’s important to stress that geoengineering options can never reverse all of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. For example, it doesn’t reverse ocean acidification. And it obviously has associated risk. So geoengineering is not an alternative to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.” said Ban-Weiss.

Carnegie Press Release

wattsupwiththat.com

Oh what could possibly go wrong with this technology? Well, first, I'm not seeing what we would WANT to spray at those altitudes which constitutes a good idea. However, if there is one thing I've learned, it's to look for the military application because others already have. So there I do see a use. Any nation in the world need only get the altitude, atmospherics and a little good luck to literally "rain" anything they might want on an enemy downwind. This idea sounds a lot like one for the "Just because we think we can doesn't mean we should" file IMHO.

reply to post by burntheships

Personally I don't think SRM is a good idea either. I've also thought the balloon idea was just wacky. Sort of Wiley Coyoteish. (Acme balloons!)

I just don't see what the big deal is about an attempt to test a proposed deployment mechanism. Hey, if it doesn't work it's a good thing right?

reply to post by Deafseeingeyedog

Atlantis is a story and there is nothing in Plato's story about attempts at climate control. An stories that claim that are, like Plato's, made up.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, it is. Personally I think in the end all attempts to Geoengineer the planets atmosphere will
fail, they will be an epic fail.

Its funny to learn your an advocate of Geoengineering then?


Tony Blair speaking at the launch of the Faith Foundation

" You cannot understand the modern world unless you understand the importance of religious faith. Faith motivates, galvanises, organises and integrates millions upon millions of people."
www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org...

Lets compare that statement by Blair above to the statements in the Club of Rome document;

The First Global Revolution
which is " A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

So we have the power brokers of the empire pushing "faith" to galvanize the issue of "Climate Change"

It is called "Holy Land Declaration on Climate Change" and looks specifically at the International Climate Conference which is to be held in Durban, South Africa, next November. This is a continuation of the meetings held in Copenhagen in 2009 and Cancun in 2010, both of which terminated without an agreement being reached regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group commissioned by the UN to monitor the phenomenon, really believes is essential for combating global warming. vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...

In other words...Copenhagen failed, the IPCC has been caught with pants down and now they need
to breath new life into the issue of "Climate Change" by wrapping it up in a new shiny "faith" based
motivation.

These highest religious authorities; the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Palestinian Ministry of Religious Affairs (Waqf), the Palestinian Court of Sharia law and all leaders of Christian Churches in Jerusalem; The Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land in Jerusalem.

That of religious leaders in the Holy Land is a real endorsement of the IPCC program: “We recognize - the statement reads - the scientific evidence of climate change caused by man and the threat it poses to human societies and the planet, as explained by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we also recognize the spiritual roots of this crisis and the importance of providing a religious response.”vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...

"providing a religious response"

A religious response by a cartel of organizations of various denominations
acting in different countries around the world to urge religious leaders to fight for the cause

And again, the cause is: the

new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like

And compare Blairs statement above to the one below taken from The Vatican Insider concerning
the The Holy Land: The Ecological Turning Point Of The Three Religions

Hence the invitation to proceed with a "major rethink of their spiritual and physical relationship with this God-given planet and how we consume and use of its blessed resources.” But religious leaders - very concretely – ask believers “to reduce their personal greenhouse gas emissions and urge their political leaders to adopt strong, binding and scientifically motivated targets to reduce greenhouse gases, in order to avoid even worst dangers of a climate crisis.”vaticaninsider.lastampa.it...

This is about money, not the climate!

edit on 12-9-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

Media Releases
Climate engineering risks “moral corruption”
Tuesday 23 August 2011

news.anu.edu.au/?p=10781

Deliberate alteration of the Earth’s environment by humans on a large scale to counter the effects of climate change and in some cases to avoid having to reduce carbon emissions, could be called ‘moral corruption’ according to a leading Australian ethicist.

Professor Clive Hamilton from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) raised questions about the justification of geoengineering in a public lecture at The Australian National University.

“The geoengineering debate is poised to move to centre-stage when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the first time considers geoengineering solutions in its Fifth Assessment Report, due out in stages in 2013 and 2014,” he said. “But many questions still remain about its moral reasoning.

“As an example of geoengineering in action, plans are being developed to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by injecting sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

“Since the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, the amount of solar radiation reaching it has been determined by the Sun, mediated by the Earth’s atmosphere. It seems we are no longer happy with the arrangement and want to assume control ourselves. Is this the final push by humans for total mastery of the planet?

“We have used many excuses for our failure to reduce carbon emissions. When we look for reasons to avoid doing what we know we should do it can be called ‘moral corruption’, so geoengineering research may be a form of moral corruption.”

Professor Hamilton said there were also some concerns that the knowledge generated by geoengineering research would be misused in foreseeable ways.

“Big energy companies have used their power to slow or prevent action on climate change. Any realistic assessment must conclude that geoengineering research represents a ‘moral hazard’, that is, it is virtually certain to reduce incentives to cut carbon emissions.”

CAAPE is an Australian Research Council Special Research Centre spanning ANU, Charles Sturt University and the University of Melbourne.

Filed under: Media Release,
Contacts: For interviews: Professor Clive Hamilton, (02) 6272 6206 or 0413 993 223; For media assistance: Leanne O’Rourkes, ANU Media (02) 6125 4171 or 0418 307 213

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

Well, believe me when I say they have spent billions on this. Just the U.S. budget alone
is in the billions!

For what exactly??

U.S. Global Change Research Program.
With its 2 billion dollar a year budget for 2011, its sure to be a game changer.

Which is mostly a research programme into the EFFECTS of climate change - why wouldn't you want good data on what is or is not happening??

Sure they spend some of the money on researching geo-engineering - ways in which climate change might be combatted - it would be remiss of them not to.

Have you any info on what proportion of their $2 billion gets spent on geo-engineering research?? I don't....

But looking through their website and searching for geo-engineering I get results to do with everything from carbon sinks, polanting trees, buying economical motor vehicles & all sorts of stuff.

on the technical side, anything that reaches from ground, or sea in this case, to that level of atmosphere is going to build up alot of static charge, if not lightning itself, such is the theory behind an antenna. I'm fairly certain the scientists will have covered this base, but that said, water is fairly conductive, not to mention it breaks down to hydrogen and oxygen at high voltage.

from an engineering standpoint I don't see that as a simple task to overcome, perhaps with materials and shielding or redirection via lightning rod structures of some sort, and I haven't begun to contemplate how wind enters the equation for the stability of the flying part of the craft itself. lots of things to think about there, I guess I hope they have already cover this like I say.

regarding atlantis..all I can say is the storys history is more clouded than most texts i've ever heard of, but what I have seen has opened my mind to a bit of mystery, rang a bell if you will. science would agree but it hasn't caught up yet, and what we know hints at the spectacular, great men have said things seen in pure mathematics will someday show its face in reality, its as though they took a step back for a moment from a feirce iron scientific viewpoint before checking the data. that said, i'm going to need a copy of that plato text in english before I add to the details I have previously seen on the subject, because a good deal I know is not on the mark, what makes me doubt is that the story is right there like an elephant in the room, and no ones really solved it yet, even if it was a metaphor for something we forgot about.

reply to post by jjjtir


Yep - what he's saying is that we should address the problem directly - reduce emissions, etc., rather than trying to fix the effects by cooling the planet.

And fair enough too - a lot of "debunkers" agree with him - I do,

reply to post by burntheships

Its funny to learn your an advocate of Geoengineering then?

How you come to that conclusion is beyond me.

This is what I said.

Personally I don't think SRM is a good idea either. I've also thought the balloon idea was just wacky. Sort of Wiley Coyoteish. (Acme balloons!)

I guess you hear what you want to hear, not what is said.

I don't really care what Blair has to say about it.

reply to post by Phage


Thats what they said about GMO...and now look.
They have screwed with the genetics of grains, and its into all of the
food supply!

Finding it to be harmful to animals and humans did not stop them.

Its not about the climate Phage, its about the Climate Cash Cow.

reply to post by burntheships

It's not quite the same thing as GMO crops.

But you still don't understand that I agree that SRM is probably not a good idea?

reply to post by Phage


I am glad you cleared that up for me, thanks.

And might I ask why? Why would you object to injecting Sulphate Aerosols into
the Earths atmosphere?

www.newscientist.com...

One area of doubt over injecting aerosols into the stratosphere is whether it will change the behaviour of high-altitude clouds. That could in turn affect the climate in ways beyond what was intended - and for now, we don't know how, or how much. Aerosols could also deplete the ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and may alter visibility in the same way as large volcanic eruptions can.

taking a step back and reading their side, I think they agree with me somewhat, this isn't exactly the safest thing to be messing with..

The SPICE test won't answer any of these questions, says David Keith of Harvard University. "I think it's a little reckless." The most interesting result will be how the public reacts, he says.

What's more, Keith adds, in the long run delivering sulphates to the stratosphere with a hose would be a bad idea. Spraying aerosols locally allows the particles to clump together, making them less effective at reflecting sunlight and more likely to be swept down by rain

if im not mistaken, they are thinking aerosols because they cool as they lose pressure like in spray cans where they get colder as you spray, its one way to refridgerate something I guess. however, then I read on.

Keith's own studies suggest that if we were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally, it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft

to block sun rays globally, spray sulphuric acid. . . . . .

*facepalm* and with that I hand the mic to the next man.

It seems we will never learn, it's like trying to put a fire we started out with gasoline we refined.

reply to post by burntheships

I don't really care if it's sulphates or any of the other suggestions.

Here's why I don't think it's a good idea.
It seems to serve as a quick fix; "Hey why cut carbon emissions when all we have to do is put up a sunscreen!" The trouble with that, as you pointed out, is that it doesn't address other effects of increased carbon levels.

There is the possibility (or probability) of unintended consequences. Once you start putting stuff up there it's going to be up there for years, you can't just turn it off.

But, I think it is important to study the possibilities. I think that, if at some point in the future, it becomes necessary to implement such schemes we should know as much about them (and their consequences) as possible. What if, as the anti-AGW crowd says, it isn't humans that are causing the planet to heat up? Wouldn't it be a good thing if we knew we could do something to avoid a crisis? I think so, but I'm not a Luddite.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

I don't really care if it's sulphates or any of the other suggestions.

Why not? I think you competely ignored any heath risks to the humans who breathe the air
of the plantet, and the animals for that matter.

There is the possibility (or probability) of unintended consequences. Once you start putting stuff up there it's going to be up there for years, you can't just turn it off.

Well, at least you admit its dangerous, and once the pandoras box is opened
it cant be shut without consequences.

And its documented...there are enough studies that have been carried out already to
prove that SRM can dim the planet. We dont need another set of studies on that.

What we need is the truth concerning the implications on humanity,
the direct impact it would have on our health. Much of which we already know,
its just been kept from the publics view, as they dont want people rising up and
reacting.