It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Drew99GT
Does anyone have ANY credible information that there's a secret program for adding anything to jet fuel to create spreading cirrus clouds?
Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet
This option involves increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050. Sulfur dioxide gas is emitted in the turbine exhaust and ideally, nearly all of it converted to sulfuric acid gas and then to sulfuric acid aerosol. The sulfuric acid aerosol floats around in the stratosphere for 1-2 years and reflects sunlight. The level in jet fuel is raised each year to match increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Regional dispersal from several bases provides fuel cost savings and particulate is
spread globally via winds. A notional basing strategy is shown (Figure 4) with arrows
indicating the direction prevailing winds will carry the released particulate.
Care is taken to choose bases capable of supporting high-tempo geoengineering operations
and with the land available to allow any ramp or hanger expansion necessary.
It should be noted that the costs of any facility improvement are not included in the cost
analysis presented in subsequent sections.
DHL recently built a state-of-the-art Central Asia Cargo Hub at Hong Kong Airport, the faculty is designed to handle 2.6M tonnes annually and required investment of approximately $1B.8
For aircraft operations, fuel burn is estimated using the mission profile shown
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by kykweer
Its not as simple as a presumption that GMO seeds can produce more crop, or
that GMO crop can save the world and feed starving people as opposed to non GMO crops.
Some information you may wish to digest.
MONSANTO which has its propietary name on the world's
GMO food supply - has designed its GMO seed and its very expensive, compared to non GMO,
also its designed so that it requires Monsantos very expensive chemical "fertilizers".
Not to mention that the fertilizers, and the Round Up needed to "maintain" these crops have
been strongly linked to cause birth defects, soil and plant disease.
Even if these GMO crops (which in the third world countires is mainly rice )
otherwise could be found to be safe, which is impossible - but - no matter if - they will "tweak" - the
studys to skew the results- a person would have to eat 16 pounds a day to
gain the Viatmain A from the rice that its "touted" for.
???
In fact, it has been suggested that malnourished people might not convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, which blows the usefulness of golden rice clearly out of the water, as its intended recipients are virtually guaranteed to be malnourished.
You think its realistic that a person could afford to eat upwards of 16 pounds a day--
to get the recommended amount of vitamin A
Not to mention that GMO rice is already out of control in China, and just recently
it was published they are now "alramed" at the spead of illegal GMO rice.
There is a reason the GMO rice is illegal - its BT rice, a transgenic strain that has not been approved for commercial growing and should not be in human food, which contains a poison that kills butterflies and moths, not to mention that it is a trigger in humans for severe allergic reactions.
And the scary part is they claim they want to help poor undernourished people in "third world" countires!
Yeah, some help, some humitarian deeds.
edit on 7-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by kykweer
You can't say all GMO food are poison, its an unfair and ridiculous assumption.
My point is, are you suggesting that poor people should not be fed anything at all?
At least a bowl of rice will make them full and give them some energy to work and make a living.
Bill Gates is doing something, you can try growing organic food in your back yard.
this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.
To investigate the method, we modeled the formation of sulfate aerosol by the injection of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) vapor using an aerosol microphysics model (subsequently called plume model) that follows an expanding parcel in the plume from the time of emission (see auxiliary material Text S1).
the radiation of heat at night is reduced more. The heat is trapped.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.
Yes. But I think you don't realize that the experiments involved computer models, not real world testing.
Here is the referenced article.
To investigate the method, we modeled the formation of sulfate aerosol by the injection of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) vapor using an aerosol microphysics model (subsequently called plume model) that follows an expanding parcel in the plume from the time of emission (see auxiliary material Text S1).
www.see.ed.ac.uk...
Originally posted by Drew99GT
OK, this thread has my mind in a battle. I've read all the links that are posted about real geoengineering programs being proposed and many of them come from universities. I'm a die hard skeptic of "chemtrails". IMO, the only way enough aerosol particles could be deployed into the stratosphere for SRM would be by adding them to commercial jet fuel. If the military had a secret group of planes to do this, it would be easy to spot. Plus, it would require thousands of planes. IF geoengineering through the use of aerosol particles is actually happening, it would have to involve commercial aircraft through jet fuel.
Does anyone have ANY credible information that there's a secret program for adding anything to jet fuel to create spreading cirrus clouds?
It is a fact that many universities and organizations have documents discussing geoengineering through the use of aerosol particles dumped in the upper atmosphere, through a variety of delivery mechanisms. However, implementing a secret program for delivering metallic nano particles into the atmosphere is where my skepticism lies.
Geoengineering should be viewed as a choice of last resort, It is much safer for the planet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering would be a gamble. Just as there are many uncertainties associated with predicting the kind of changes to our climate from increasing greenhouse gases, there will be similar uncertainties to predicting the changes from geoengineering.
a tool of last resort.
SRM is cheap and can act quickly to cool the planet, but it introduces novel environmental and security risks and can—at best—only partially mask the environmental impacts of elevated carbon dioxide.
In the spirit of disclosure, I offer a few comments about my own work. I run Carbon Engineering, a startup company that aims to develop industrial scale technologies for capturing CO2 from the air.
I believe that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it.
The idea of deliberately manipulating the Earth‘s energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris. It is a healthy sign that a common first response to geoengineering is revulsion.
It suggests we have learned something from past instances of over-eager technological optimism and subsequent failures. But we must also avoid over-interpreting this past experience. Responsible management of climate risks requires sharp emissions cuts and clear-eyed research and assessment of SRM capability. The two are not in opposition. We are currently doing neither; action is urgently needed on both.
Opinions about SRM are changing rapidly. Only a few years ago, many scientists opposed open discussion of the topic. Many now support model-based research, but discussion of field testing of the sort we advocate here is contentious and will likely grow more so.
gop.science.house.gov...
While we do not have a smoking gun yet to prove that that mitigation is underway, this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.
I mean, how in the world does this generate Millions from Gates
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.
Volcanoes inject sulfur into the stratosphere almost exclusively as sulfur dioxide (SO2), which does not itself condense to aerosols.
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
ATG,
That is the best twisting of words to fit into a hair splitter
I have ever seen.
We know that sulfate can cool the Earth......
Thats ridiculous. It says what it says.
Originally posted by burntheships
Originally posted by Phage
SRM won't work? Why not?
SRM can not reverse the harmful effects (questionable as that assumption is)
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
We covered that already.
Think the FDA would approve a drug based on computer models?
Originally posted by Phage
This is not exactly the same situation as the invention of a new device but because a good part of investment is the taking of risks. Gates obviously believes the research is worthwhile. Maybe because the primary motive is not profit?
Because major shifts in the global climate would pose a challenge like no other that humanity has faced, we at I.V. have devoted a substantial amount of effort and investment to develop ways to avoid the emissions that cause climate change. We have also begun inventing practical ways to reverse some of the possible effects of climate change
intellectualventureslab.com...