Geoengineering Trials Get Under Way

reply to post by jjjtir


Thanks for the report, jjjtir,

The risks are incalculable — one way it could backfire would be by increasing the ocean’s acidity, making blue skies a thing of the past.

Lowell Wood is someone who has few doubts about humankind’s ability to manipulate nature. He developed technology for the US military’s “Star Wars missile shield” and has recently promoted aerosol geo-engineering as a solution to climate change.

There are several investors, such as Richard Branson and Bill Gates, who have a vested interest in business-as-usual growth, but also seem to have a vision of themselves as saving the planet in a unilateral way — a messiah complex.

Hamilton described these men as “so out of sync with modern attitudes to nature that they seem like a throwback”.

For him they are committing the crime of hubris as they put themselves above the laws of nature. The risk of never seeing a blue sky again, as global dimming traps us in a cycle of continual aerosol cooling, is real.
www.greenleft.org.au...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

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.

Eyes wide shut. 2 Billion a year for things they aready know?

Milk that cow.

Sulfate aerosols also have a strong cooling effect on Earth, both through their ability to scatter incoming light and because of their propensity to increase cloud formation and reflectivity.
www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org... ate-change/

Originally posted by burntheships
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.

you completely ignored what he said - didn't you??

He said he doesn't care what it is because he thinks it is all potentially BAD.

He's saying it is a BAD idea - as many "debunkers" do - like me - sulphates have the potential to cause acid rain for example. Other materials have other possibilities.

David Keith (Canadian Geo-engineernig advocate) reckons using platelets of aluminium & barium would get around most of the problems that otehr chemicals might cause - but that possibility has it's own problems including taking an anourmous amount of resouorce to produce and distribute. Not to mention that he is a chemtrailers wet dream for wanting to spray aluminium AND barium "nanoparticles"...

Originally posted by burntheships

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

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.

Eyes wide shut. 2 Billion a year for things they aready know?

Milk that cow.

Do you really think we know all there is to know about climate change and clearly and mankind's part in it??

Honestly - you think the research is all done and dusted??

reply to post by burntheships

Were there health impacts as a result of the Pinatubo eruption (besides the obvious ones)? You're worried about sulphates? You'd better stay away from cities...and the beach:

Sulphate in precipitation is an index of atmospheric pollution but natural sources also contribute to its concentration. One of the dominant natural sources of sulphate is seasalt and reseachers have routinely calculated its proportion using reference species such as Cl–, Na+ and Mg2+.

www.springerlink.com...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

David Keith (Canadian Geo-engineernig advocate) reckons using platelets of aluminium & barium would get around most of the problems that otehr chemicals might cause - but that possibility has it's own problems including taking an anourmous amount of resouorce to produce and distribute. Not to mention that he is a chemtrailers wet dream for wanting to spray aluminium AND barium "nanoparticles"...

Yes, I am aware and have posted that information in several of my threads mentioned in the
OP of this news. Barium, Aluminum, nasty stuff!

www.pnas.org...

investigation of how injecting large quantities of precisely engineered particles into the upper atmosphere might provide a cost-effective tool for climate intervention – geoengineering.

The idea of using aerosol particles for messing with climate change isn’t a new one – the idea of injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more sunlight away from the earth has been around for a while.......

........precisely engineered particles not too dissimilar from those that David described back in the 1990′s, which got me wondering whether techniques being used then for fabrication of silicon particles could be used for the more complex particles being proposed here....

Proposed self-aligning, levitating, sunlight-reflecting nano-disc (Keith, 2010)
In a nutshell, David’s idea is to engineer discs around 10 micrometers across and 50 nanometers thick, with a core of aluminum, a top layer of aluminum oxide, and a bottom layer of barium titanate. Injected high enough into the atmosphere

2020science.org...


And? Yes, Aluminum is proposed still. And?
Its dangerous. And...especially in nano particle size. And?

Who is going to pay for all of this?

www.guardian.co.uk...

"No developing country will sign up to an agreement that could give them no extra money at all. The EU and other rich countries must provide new and additional finance, otherwise there will be no deal at all," said Rob Bailey, Oxfam's senior policy adviser. Developing nations have been unanimous and implacable on the terms of the finance deal.

Of course, dont forget that the 747s still look promising.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships

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

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.

Eyes wide shut. 2 Billion a year for things they aready know?

Milk that cow.

Do you really think we know all there is to know about climate change and clearly and mankind's part in it??

Honestly - you think the research is all done and dusted??

Speaking of dusting...

Here I examine the possibility that engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates.

www.pnas.org...

Oh, the joys of breathing aluminum nano particles, and barium.

Originally posted by burntheships
And? Yes, Aluminum is proposed still. And?

I dont' know? and what? Are you trying to make a particular point??

Its dangerous.

How is it dangerous?

And...especially in nano particle size. And?

and why particularly in "nano size"?

reply to post by Phage


Oh, well even volcanic ash can be hazardous to folks heath, if that was all they are scheming to do.

cav.volcano.info...

But...we know they have big plans...

See my above posts on nano particles - aluminum and barium.

reply to post by burntheships

Those aren't plans. They're speculations.
Are they planning on dispersing this stuff with balloons?
You may be sort of losing track of the topic.

you realise both of said ingrediants have been pointed to countless times by chemtrail researchers, ie already ongoing, sulphur is new to me, as for the 'if you have to spray globally because of doom use sulphuric acid' well...I wouldn't put my hand in it, I don't want to breath it. nuff said.

it seams like they are giving the whole idea a green flag to go entirely public rather than just doing it if you take the previous data as fact, and as for barium, they probably put worse in cigarettes, but I can still complain about aluminium nano-particles, I don't need to explain why I hope, they had some big scares with nanotech a few years back, i'm fairly sure the effects on the body are still relatively uncharted territories.

ed: the alum and barium we're mentioned in similar technologies from links posted in this thread, its kind of related so um..yea, i'd jst suggest check those too. the fact that one of the star wars project guys is in on that side of things is a bit worrying. however its not directly linked to this specific experiment, only in principle.

reply to post by whatsinaname


Thanks for your comments, whatsinaname.

Its very interesting to watch the goal post change, is it not?

Now, the race will be on to prove that aluminum and barium could adversly affect human health,
now that its out in the open they may move ahead with it.

I think these new discoveries goes hand in hand with the topic.
CERN confirms: Cosmic rays have more effect on the climate than manmade CO2

CERN confirms Danish theory on global warming
www.mrctv.org...
Cosmic rays may drive climate
iceagenow.info...


The first results from the lab's CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets") experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth's clouds are formed through nucleation.

It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone.
CLOUD Project

In 1998 Jasper Kirkby at the CERN particle physics lab in Geneva proposed an experiment called CLOUD to investigate the possible role of cosmic rays in atmospheric chemistry. The idea was to use a beam of accelerated particles to simulate the cosmic rays, and to look for aerosols produced in a reaction chamber containing air and trace gases.

In 2005 they found a mechanism that cosmic rays can help the production of clouds

The data revealed that electrons released in the air by cosmic rays act as catalysts. They significantly accelerate the formation of stable, ultra-small clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules which are building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei.

dahuang.dhxy.info...
www.icr.org...
calderup.wordpress.com...

EVEN THE SCIENTISTS say this is a LAST CASE SCENARIO...

They list MANY many ways that this could cause more harm than good.

1. There are lots of disease particles floating up there that would bond with aerosols and come down causing untold harm to people, animals, and plants.

2. There is no way to accurately predict all the ramifications of introducing aerosol particulates on the ecosystems of both the ocean and the land.

I could go on, but all the scientists I have heard studying this have said they DO NOT WANT TO USE IT!

Here are a couple of links discussing this:
Geoengineering: Global Salvation or Ruin? (video series)
This next is from a congressional hearing on geoengineering:

Environmental 
Impact: 
There 
are
 a 
variety 
of
 possible 
environmental
 consequences,
which
 have
 been
 described
 in
 the
 studies 
by 
Rasch
and
 Robock
 submitted 
at
 the
 last
 hearing.
 Among
 them 
are 
a)
changes
 in 
the 
ratio 
of 
direct 
to
 diffuse 
sunlight, 
with 
possible 
impacts 
on 
ecosystem,
and 
solar
 electricity 
generation;
 b) 
changes
 in
precipitation
 patterns; 
c)
changes
in
El
Nino.
... b]Geoengineering
 should 
be 
viewed 
as 
a 
choice 
of 
last 
resort, 
It 
is 
much
 safer 
for
 the
 planet 
to
 reduce
greenhouse 
gas
 emissions.

source.

Originally posted by burntheships
Now, the race will be on to prove that aluminum and barium could adversly affect human health,
now that its out in the open they may move ahead with it.

Isn't this thread about spraying seawater, as a study for the possibility of spryaing sulphur dioxide?

What have aluminium & barium got to do with it??

And have you been drinking from an aluminium can any time lately? Been breathing in any dust that is full of aluminium?? Are those nano particles killing you yet??

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

Are they planning on dispersing this stuff with balloons?

Umm.No Airplanes! You know...modified 747s!

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 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975).

It would also be cheaper, costing a few billion dollars a year according to a study by Aurora Flight Sciences

You may be sort of losing track of the topic.

Phage, do you talk to yourself often?

reply to post by burntheships

No.
But I try to stay on topic.
I really did think this was about the field trials of the balloon proposal.

That's pretty neat. That thing you do with the bold print.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by burntheships
Now, the race will be on to prove that aluminum and barium could adversly affect human health,
now that its out in the open they may move ahead with it.

Isn't this thread about spraying seawater, as a study for the possibility of spryaing sulphur dioxide?

Once again, from the OP...I know it must be hard to come to grips with, you have been betrayed.

Airplanes! You know...modified 747s!

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 (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975).www.newscientist.com...

Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission
of condensible vapor from aircraft



Jeffrey R. Pierce

Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


www.agu.org...

reply to post by burntheships

Oh. I see. It's about SRM in general. Pretty broad topic.
Like I said, I don't think it's a good idea but I do think it's a good idea to study it.

reply to post by Phage


I know, its practically time to yawn huh?

Spraying from planes...more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft...

It would also be cheaper, costing a few billion dollars a year.

Coincidentally about the size of the U.S. Budget on Climate Change.

Recent analysis suggests that the effectiveness of stratospheric aerosol climate engineering through emission of non-condensable vapors such as SO2 is limited because the slow conversion to H2SO4 tends to produce aerosol particles that are too large; SO2 injection may be so inefficient that it is difficult to counteract the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling. Here we describe an alternate method in which aerosol is formed rapidly in the plume following injection of H2SO4, a condensable vapor, from an aircraft. This method gives better control of particle size and can produce larger radiative forcing with lower sulfur loadings than SO2 injection. Relative to SO2 injection, it may reduce some of the adverse effects of geoengineering such as radiative heating of the lower stratosphere. This method does not, however, alter the fact that such a geoengineered radiative forcing can, at best, only partially compensate for the climate changes produced by CO2. www.agu.org...