Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Furthermore for those who say that Geoengineering is not taking place.

This is the Bush administrations US Climate Change Technology Program - Strategic Plan 2006 pdf

This report is not based on aircraft alone. It covers all aspects of climate change.

We are pleased to be able to present this Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). The technology strategy detailed in this Plan is an essential element of a comprehensive climate change strategy that includes undertaking short-term actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advancing climate science, and promoting international cooperation.

CCTP was created by the President in 2002—and subsequently authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005— to coordinate and prioritize the Federal Government’s portfolio of investments in climate-related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D). The portfolio totaled about $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2006

Originally posted by SteelToe
Furthermore for those who say that Geoengineering is not taking place.

This is the Bush administrations US Climate Change Technology Program - Strategic Plan 2006 pdf

This report is not based on aircraft alone. It covers all aspects of climate change.

We are pleased to be able to present this Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP). The technology strategy detailed in this Plan is an essential element of a comprehensive climate change strategy that includes undertaking short-term actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advancing climate science, and promoting international cooperation.

CCTP was created by the President in 2002—and subsequently authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005— to coordinate and prioritize the Federal Government’s portfolio of investments in climate-related technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D). The portfolio totaled about $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2006

edit on 20-3-2012 by SteelToe because: (no reason given)

WOW and thanks for that link I just cruised it over and this is going to take awhile to get through.

You are posting premium stuff to back up what the OP is saying and I cannot thank you enough for this very very informative post.
Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
reply to post by Gmoneycricket

 

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I don't expect to be able to sway your believe either,
that Contrails are harmless.

What is up with the lack of comprehension in this thread? Yet again, someone is completely misunderstanding what I have said. Let me quote what I have already told you.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I am in no way saying that contrails or associated clouds benefit us. There are many studies trying to figure out the climate forcing of contrails, as with increasing air travel and new aircraft comes increasing contrails and increased climate forcings. Not to mention that they can obscure your sun.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned
I'm not defending aircraft pollution. I know it pollutes, and it is not great for the environment.

Perhaps you should try reading peoples posts before making stuff up about them. Or was that not clear enough for you?

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Your group is spreading misinformation on what is in contrails, and how they affect the atmosphere.

I have posted ample information on how contrails affect the atmosphere, mostly from meteorological societies scientific papers. If you can quote just one piece of misinformation that I have spread then quote it. I'm getting tired of responding to people making claims with nothing to back it up.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I do like the kerosene lamp as being the best response you can come up with to global dimming by aerosols,
I take that as you are admitting global dimming of the planet with contrails,
so here's a lamp.

I have already said that contrails affect the weather and climate. The only information you came up with was the by-products of the combustion of kerosene. That is what happens in a kerosene lamp. But the premise of chemtrails and geo-engineering is that there are other chemicals that are introduced to the atmosphere besides the usual engine exhaust. Why didn't you address this? You are merely introducing a strawman argument. You're ticking off a few of those points on that disinformation list.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I just got you to admit there is by-products in contrails,
and you do not understand the effects,

Congratulations, you must be proud of yourself. Unfortunately, I had already "admitted" this if you understood my previous posts. Show me where I have not understood the effects of contrails instead of making baseless claims. To do this, you're going to have to try to actually understand the effects yourself. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
The Contrail Coloring Book

could you point me in the right direction,
as all educators hand out coloring books,
so I am sure the contrailers do,
with their just trying to educate us response's.

I'm not aware of such a book. But judging by your childish response, you should probably stick to coloring books and leave the discussion to the people who bother to show evidence and an understanding of their claims. If you want to start producing evidence for your claims of what I have done, then please do.

edit on 20/3/12 by Curious and Concerned because: didn't end up editing anything

I am glad you got to sleep last night, reassuring yourself that you put me in my place.
I understand your believe and the word you are trying to spread, and you have right to do so.
So as long as we agree you will not try to intimate me for my believe, we are fine.

Any time I see harmless water vapor, no chemicals in contrails, I will respond.

I find it interesting when I point out that contrails have chemical by-products,
That the contrail/control group always tries to educate me that.
chemtrails are weapons of mass destruction and that I don't understand.
That is why I asked for the coloring book so I could catch up with the mocking of chemtrailers,
and understand the contrailers fear of a word.

I see a childish response of

Chemtrails will rot your bones
but planes and contrails,
will never hurt you.

reply to post by SteelToe

Furthermore for those who say that Geoengineering is not taking place.

Maybe you can help us out a bit and show us where in the plan it say that any geoengineering proposals (SRM in particular) were or are to be undertaken?

Everyone knows it is, and its been published by the name chemtrails, and by geoengineering in their own documents and international ones, and there have been countless threads about it.

Just stop raining on truth, no one needs it. They need 100% TRUTH and FREEDOM from these EVIL ONES.

Everyone is a metaphor by the way, ie grass roots people.

reply to post by Phage

Maybe you can help us out a bit and show us where in the plan it say that any geoengineering proposals (SRM in particular) were or are to be undertaken?

The plan does not discuss those specific techniques of SRM Geoengineering. It was published in 2006 which is also the same year that serious debate and open discussion about using SRM is admitted.

Public understanding of solar radiation management

Discussion of SRM within the scientific literature dates back to the 1960s. While major climate change assessment reports of the 1970s and 1980s discussed its possible use as part of a broadly inclusive framing of climate change, it was largely ignored as concerns about anthropogenic climate change gained political visibility (Keith 2000).

While sporadic articles were published over the past few decades, discussion of SRM remained on the periphery of the climate debate and shrouded in taboo, due to a widespread concern that public discussion of SRM would lessen the incentives for political action to restrain emissions (Kiehl 2006). The taboo was broken in 2006 when Paul Crutzen published an editorial essay urging more systematic consideration of SRM (Crutzen 2006).

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

Thank you,

... and no, I've not seen it again... that was the first time I had ever seen anything like that.

I will try to continue to document if I ever see such again... and to document a normal night of the same time period with both radar and photographs next full moon for a comparison.

I took a picture today... but this is a perfectly normal contrail. I checked the radar, could see the planes that made them, checked NOAA and it showed conditions for contrails existed.

I took a few, I chose this one to post as it looks similar to some of the othersI photographed the other night that spread out, that Xtrozero thought could not be contrails because the way they spread out. Note the other night, the planes were not on radar, and conditions did not exist. For this photo the planes were on radar and conditions did exist...


Forgive the quality, its from my cell phone camera. I was out riding my motorcycle, stopped, and took this.

I add this to show that contrails do spread out in the way Xtrozero suggested they did not. Normal contrails, and the contrails induced from the planes not on radar I filmed the other night both can form these long spreading shapes.

reply to post by SteelToe

So when you said this:

Furthermore for those who say that Geoengineering is not taking place.

It had absolutely nothing to do with this thread which is about an alleged incident of SRM. Thank you for clarifying that.

While it is off topic, I can't find anything in the document that indicates geoengineering of any sort was, or is, taking place.

The questions as I understand it, of this thread,
was Geoengineering - caught in the act?

Current status
Contrail/Control Group has been unable to prove

That Man Made Clouds cast no shadows.
That Man Made Clouds reflect no sunlight.
That Man Made Clouds retain no heat.
That Man Made Clouds contain zero aerosols.
That Man Made Clouds does not affect precipitation of natures clouds.

All the above unanswered questions could be weather manipulation,
or what, some would call Geoengineering.

So all I have seen is people asking, if you are not manipulating the weather,
then why does,
Man Made Clouds have all these side effects that we are observing from the ground?

reply to post by Gmoneycricket

The OP is quite clear the he believes what he saw was something other than normal contrail activity.

I want emphasize the point that techniques of contrail generation are being studied for the purposes of Geoengineering. As out lined in this post below

Originally posted by SteelToe


Below are some possible techniques that can be used for current Geoengineering tests and implementation.
By using theses proposed techniques we can see that the chemical components of jet emissions can remain the same but the levels are changed to specifically accomplish the purpose of Geoengineering.

Aerosol Discussion

Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet

Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft

Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft

Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

Here we can see that fuel and/or additives in them, as well as fuel settings (air/fuel ratios) can have a big impact on contrail formation and should be considered as Geoengineering techniques. The amount of soot, sulfur and other aerosols in jet exhaust is directly proportional to the amount of CCN (cloud condensation nuclei) a contrail has. Which effects the possible life span and ch

reply to post by Phage

While it is off topic, I can't find anything in the document that indicates geoengineering of any sort was, or is, taking place.

While you may feel that the report is off topic. I strongly disagree.

Every technique discussed in that report is a form of Geoengineering.

While the OP is focused on a particular incident he witnessed and documented involving possible SRM deployment.

The OP nor does title of the thread limit this discussion to just SRM Geoengineering. I agree that it would be best to focus mainly on that particular aspect of Geoengineering.

I also think that seeing how the long term development of these projects has taken place.

reply to post by SteelToe

I want emphasize the point that techniques of contrail generation are being studied for the purposes of Geoengineering. As out lined in this post below

None of those proposed techniques have anything to do with contrail generation. It is currently understood that contrails have a net warming effect so generating contrails for the purposes of geoengineering makes no sense.

reply to post by Phage


Please provide the reports CONFIRM your theory

As far as any of the reports I have read there is much debate about the topic of contrail albedo effects.

You of course selectively try to chose the side that supports you theory as being the definitive one.

There are no definitive reports that exist proving the warming or cooling effects of contrails.

Just another opinion on your part.

None of those proposed techniques have anything to do with contrail generation

Yes they do

The more CCN available in jet exhaust, the larger the potential contrail can be

Here's a rather interesting video I stumbled upon.
Feel free to skip to the 4:15 mark where the difference between contrails and CONtrails is discussed.

reply to post by SteelToe

There are no definitive reports that exist proving the warming or cooling effects of contrails.

Just another opinion on your part.

No. It's not my opinion. The only question is, how much warming do contrails contribute.

We know that contrails trap some extra energy in the atmosphere: their radiative forcing trapped 10 milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) in 2005, according to an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

www.newscientist.com...
Persistent, spreading contrails are more troublesome.

By tracking the fate of contrail and natural cirrus separately, the authors can quantify the radiative forcing from spreading contrails (including young line-shaped contrails), which they estimate to be 38 mW m−2. This can be compared with a radiative forcing of 4 mW m−2 from young contrails alone and 28 mW m−2 from aviation carbon dioxide.

www.nature.com...

The more CCN available in jet exhaust, the larger the potential contrail can be

Perhaps you can provide some sources so I can know this is not "just another opinion on your part." Perhaps you can provide some sources which indicate that contrails have a net cooling effect.

Originally posted by SteelToe
Furthermore for those who say that Geoengineering is not taking place.

This is the Bush administrations US Climate Change Technology Program - Strategic Plan 2006 pdf

This report is not based on aircraft alone. It covers all aspects of climate change.

In fact it also has nothing to do with Solar Radiation Management at all either -

The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency planning and coordination entity, whose mission is to strengthen the Federal research and development portfolio across more than a dozen participating agencies. Its purpose is to accelerate the development and deployment of technologies that can reduce, avoid, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions.

This form of geoenginering - "managing" greenhouse gases - has been going on for years.

Are you objecting to it?

Because it is not the form of Geo-enginering the OP thought he had identified - that was, apparently, solar radiation management by spraying stuff in the air.

There are many forms of geo-enginering - solar radiation management is a family of techniques related to...well..as it says...manging the radiation (ie energy) hitting the earth from teh sun.

Capturing, storing, avoiding and reducing GHG's are a completely different family of geo-engineering techniques, and the only connection they have to aircraft is, AFAIK, that aircraft make GHG's, and so these techniques would affect the quantity of aircraft generated GHG's in the air - along with all other GHG's.

NASA Flip Flops on Jet Contrails; Now Suggest 'Global Cooling'

From 1999:

Jet Contrails Likely to Add to Earth’s Warming

From 2002:

Whereas cirrus clouds seem to have a net warming effect, contrails are denser and thus may produce the opposite effect.

But I think since then they've changed their mind a few times again, back and forth and there's no end in sight.

reply to post by luxordelphi

Not exactly a flip flop when they say "may".

Perhaps they've learned a few things in 9 years of research.

reply to post by Phage

I thought NASA did and that is what is linked.
Nature has never defended a cloud,
but when man makes a cloud,
it has to be defended.
That is the question,
why do so many men feel the
need to defend their created clouds?
And how come other men,
cannot question another mans created cloud?