1. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    A recent speech by CIA director John O. Brennan at the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned geoengineering, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection.

    Claim:

    • CIA director John O. Brennan at the Council admits geoengineering in the form of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is taking place, ie "chemtrails".



    Rebuttal:
    Nowhere in his speech is there an "admission" that a SAI program is already taking place. The part where Brennan mentions geoengineering is just one example out of several, not-often-mentioned issues that CIA monitors for potential (future) elements of instability in the world. A SAI program, if ever implemented, could generate conflicts and security threats if misused. It's CIA's job to consider all types of concepts for potential future problems and threats, including science oriented concepts.


    Reading the whole transcript, and the relevant parts, it becomes clear that when Brennan brings up geoengineering, he is talking about future concepts, that may never be put into practice:

    This is the context of the speech:
    add: time stamp 4:30 in full speech video attached below/c-span


    Here is the part where SAI is mentioned. Emphasis (bold font) has been added where there are clear indications how Brennan is talking about something that would be, could be a potential future thing:
    add: timesstamp 12:30 in original video linked below/c-span


    https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...eaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

    It is quite clear that John O. Brennan does not talk about something that is already implemented. He talks about merely suggested technology that might be useful, but not necessarily implemented, in the challenge against abrupt anthropogenic global warming. Brennan also raise the issues with the proposed technology from a security perspective, which is what the CIA deals with every day.

    This is nothing new. The goals and the problems of the proposed SAI technology is something that has been openly stated and discussed, both science and political-wise for more than a decade now. Brennan does not provide any new information on the subject.

    Some interesting side points:

    • Brennan mentions that an SAI program intends to combat global warming "in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do".
    • Volcanic eruptions cools the earth by depositing ash and sulfur particles in the air.
    • Some have suggested a connection to discredited scientist J. Marving's study on coal fly ash, claims which have been addressed and debunked here, here and here.
    • The very term stratospheric aerosol injection indicates that the aerosols should be put into the stratosphere, otherwise the aerosols will cause heating instead of cooling. Common "chemtrail" lore believes that conventional airplanes are doing the "spraying", but conventional airplanes cannot fly in the stratosphere. This strongly suggests that the trails seen behind such airplanes cannot be the product of stratospheric aerosol injection.


    add: full video of speech and question/answer session
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?411936-1/cia-director-john-brennan-discusses-global-threats

    add2: It has been pointed out that some commercial flight flies in the lower edge of the stratosphere (stratopause). Most common SAI proposals involve ejection of sulphate aerosols at much higher altitudes than that. For example, in the 2008 repport An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols a scenario is explained:



    15km is 50,000 feet which is much higher than conventional commercial flights go. But the altitude depends on the latitude. Northern latitudes require lower altitudes. The repport also explains (my emphasis):



    So it is important to understand that the proposed methods of SAI is neglecting obvious current delivering limitations when it comes to aircrafts. Commercial type aircrafts doesn't seem to be a viable option in this proposition.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    One remark on this; Don't they sometimes do fly in the stratosphere? Depending on definition and location used, e.g. when searching google things like these pop up:
    http://scied.ucar.edu/shortcontent/stratosphere-overview
     
  3. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, commercial planes do often fly above the tropopause, ie in the stratosphere. Here in the UK the tropopause can be around 30,000ft or even lower when we have arctic air overhead. Planes regularly fly above it (and very rarely leave contrails above it, as humidity rapidly drops off above the tropopause).

    This is a sounding from April, showing the tropopause (arrowed) below 30,000ft. Planes were leaving contrails around 27,000ft that day but no traffic above 30,000ft was leaving any trails.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Planes routinely fly in the lower stratosphere, yes. Most SRM proposals assume injection at 60/70kft, however. This is far beyond the reach of commercial aircraft, as well as all heavy lift military aircraft (the C-17 tops out around 45kft, while the An-124 reaches 40kft. The C-5 can't even reach 36kft).
     
  5. mrfintoil

    mrfintoil Active Member

    Thank you all for the clarification. Yes, the points brought by @Spectrar Ghost is what I meant originally. While some commercial aircraft flies on the edge of the lower stratosphere, it is no where near the altitude where SAI is proposed to be ejected. I will add this to my OP for clarification. Perhaps @TWCobra can help clarify, as TWCobra is an actual pilot if I remember correctly.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2016
  6. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I brought this topic up about 4 years ago in one of my initial posts. I think the info presented there is still pretty valid. I did a Sydney-Santiago flight about two weeks ago and am fairly certain we flew in the lower stratosphere for most of the way. We also contrailed for the solid two hours of sunlight we had leaving Sydney AND saw the Aurora Australis.(flew under it as well!)

    If we were dropping geoengineering materials however it would not have been particularly effective in blocking any sunlight as the sun was always either low in the sky or absent completely.

    That is the point. People like David Keith say that 30 degrees either side of the equator would be the optimum region for SAI, and a quick look at the tropopause markers in the graphs in that post show how high an aircraft would have to fly to get even close. Not possible with 99.95% of current aircraft.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    This equates to 4 grams of material per kilometre. Or roughly 1 cubic centimetre of geoengineering material per flight kilometre.
     
  8. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

  9. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member


    Its sad that he takes a discussion of potential future use of SRM as a "confession" of on-going activity. Its really unfortunate that he uses his celebrity to deliberately mis-inform (disinfo) his followers into believing its a "confession" when it is no such thing. As for actual evidence? He claims to be offering that up in his next article- stay tuned:

     
  10. Shade sitter

    Shade sitter New Member

    My guess is they will probably do the SIA thing because places like China and India make so much pollution and they won't lower it because of their economies. The thing is that it won't be covert. Unfortunately there is no garuntee that it will even work correctly or effectively enough to make a huge difference. My brother who has a BA in geology took lots of courses that focused on climate change. He said that it's too complicated to hit with a silver bullet like SAI. Many scientists do not think SIA is a good course of action. The government is definitely consulting scientists about this issue. I just wonder why they want the CIA to do this and not NASA or the air force. Maybe it is because the CIA is a foreign intelligence agency?

    The government considers climate change to be a cause of terrorism, and they are correct. Chemical companies like Dupont have a lot to gain from this whole thing and does some hawkish stuff, which works for conservatives, and fighting global warming works for the liberals. It's an easy sell to a congress who desperately needs to make something work. My brother says the earth has a way of fixing itself regardless, even if it means making human life impossible. So I figure it won't really matter if they do SIA or not. It's not going to be a big secret if they do it, but it may not work the way they plan because of how complex the atmospheric system is. This stuff is a low health concern, and the elites have to breathe the same air as all of us, so I don't really give a shit what happens at this point.
     
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member


    The Central Intelligence Agency gathers Intelligence. NASA has no means of gathering Intelligence on other countries. And the Air Force's job isn't to gather Intelligence either.
     
  12. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    The CIA is involved because global warming (GW, and it's effects) can become a security issue in the future (global flooding and/or results that can destabilize nations), and it's not out-of-the-ordinary to consider these things, for any governmental agency. Countless other gov't agencies are also considering the future effects of GW, and just because the CIA is doing it too, is no big deal. One lesson learned from 911, was that agencies should work together and share common issues....but some 'agencies' have a distasteful taboo among the suspicious.

    I think it's presumptive to claim companies and regulatory gov't are happy and complicit about climate change.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1