Is geoengineering occuring?

[George B]

Seems delusional

In what way? Please explain?

 

[George B]

As per the BBC link, altering the weather of another country is a war crime......

An attempt to slow climatic degradation might not fit that definition of an act of war . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

It is time to ask the experts . . . instead of the continual discussion . . .

Bring it, George.
What the hell are you waiting for?
You are the one making continual discussion......
Search out the experts, but first study the subject matter more carefully.....

 

[JRBids]

Those with a history of communication with the public , most likely . . . NASA . .

I assume you mean the scientists at NASA? I'm sure there are many scientists doing research who are not known for their public communication, elsewhere too.

 

[George B]

Bring it, George.
What the hell are you waiting for?
You are the one making continual discussion......
Search out the experts, but first study the subject matter more carefully.....

I will . . . don't worry Jay . . . I am going to be very deliberate in framing the questions and supporting material . . . you will get a full report of my findings . . .

 

[George B]

I assume you mean the scientists at NASA? I'm sure there are many scientists doing research who are not known for their public communication, elsewhere too.

On the contrary I have found historically that the scientists at NASA are very willing to communicate with responsible and sensible inquiry . . .

 

[MikeC]

An attempt to slow climatic degradation might not fit that definition of an act of war . . .

Read it again - changing the weather is a war crime. Ergo any weather that is changed due to climate change is a war crime.

 

[George B]

Read it again - changing the weather is a war crime.

To be an act of war it must meet all three of the following tests . . .

To be banned by Article I, the use of prohibited techniques must meet all the following criteria:

be for hostile purposes;
cause destruction, damage or
injury to another State Party;
have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/1976_enmod.pdf

The first bold item could not be proven and thus your assumption is most likely incorrect . . .

 

[MikeC]

Hostile means "unfriendly" and does not actually require war.

 

[George B]

Hostile means "unfriendly" and does not actually require war.

How is an attempt to save the world an unfriendly act? So if Canada seeds clouds and it floods in the US this is an act of war or an unfriendly act actionable in the world court? Or more correctly they are attempting seedings to reduce hail damage in Canada and it does the same thing over the US . . . is this an unfriendly act?

 

[MikeC]

Who says it is to save the world? Every chemmie in the world would consider it a hostile act for starters - although they are not state actors. It is up to the courts and countries to decide what is hostile - but it generally takes 2 actors to make a "friendly" relationship - and only 1 actor to make an unfriendly one - so if one country considers it hostile then that is a pretty easily defines starting point.

 

[George B]

Who says it is to save the world? Every chemmie in the world would consider it a hostile act for starters - although they are not state actors. It is up to the courts and countries to decide what is hostile - but it generally takes 2 actors to make a "friendly" relationship - and only 1 actor to make an unfriendly one - so if one country considers it hostile then that is a pretty easily defines starting point.

Seems to me the Treaty is moot . . . any country convinced there is a need for unilateral actions to save themselves and the world . . . will act and allow their lawyers and diplomats to handle the gray areas of international laws and treaties . . . for example, Russia as a member in the Security Council in the UN (at least the USSR was) their veto would neutralize any UN sanctions or resolutions . . .

There are 15 members of the Security Council. This includes five veto-wielding permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—based on the great powers that were the victors of World War II.[1

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

 

[MikeC]

Unilateral action is entirely possible and recognized, which is why a lot of effort has recently gone into discussing regulation of such activities. AFAIK the UN is not actually the court of war crimes any more so would be irrelevant.

 

[George B]

Unilateral action is entirely possible and recognized, which is why a lot of effort has recently gone into discussing regulation of such activities. AFAIK the UN is not actually the court of war crimes any more so would be irrelevant.

So we basically agree . . . the world court and court of war crimes only has as much power as the members give it . . . the UN, NATO, and a few others have shown occasional teeth but never against the members of the Security Council AFAIK . . . if Russia decides to proceed . . . their leverage in the world would most likely preclude intervention . . . protests yes, threats maybe . . . actions against them highly unlikely . . .

 

[MikeC]

More than likely yeah - but if they (or anyone else) did so and ignored the political contretemps then that would make it a lot easier to identify who/what was hostile too!!

 

[George B]

More than likely yeah - but if they (or anyone else) did so and ignored the political contretemps then that would make it a lot easier to identify who/what was hostile too!!

Yea, the big test will be if someone attempts a large scale experiment and does it with or without public disclosure . . . what will be the political ramifications . . . ? Or will the world just say . . . at least someone is trying . . .

 

[Joe]

Seems the propaganda arm pushing Geoengineering is working real hard .

Summer ice in the Arctic will vanish in less that 40 years. That's according to the final draft of the UN's blockbuster climate report which comes out this Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/climate-change-20_b_3970194.html But we know its already happening NOW .

The most practical of the solar geo-engineering techniques involves sending a specially modified fleet of jets around the globe spraying sulfates into the atmosphere that would combine with pre-existing water vapor to form aerosols. When dispersed by the wind, these sulfates would cover the globe with a haze that could reflect an estimated one percent of solar radiation back out into space.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/57126/

 

[George B]

Seems the propaganda arm pushing Geoengineering is working real hard .

Summer ice in the Arctic will vanish in less that 40 years. That's according to the final draft of the UN's blockbuster climate report which comes out this Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/climate-change-20_b_3970194.html But we know its already happening NOW .

The most practical of the solar geo-engineering techniques involves sending a specially modified fleet of jets around the globe spraying sulfates into the atmosphere that would combine with pre-existing water vapor to form aerosols. When dispersed by the wind, these sulfates would cover the globe with a haze that could reflect an estimated one percent of solar radiation back out into space.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/57126/

I agree . . .

 

[Joe]

I agree . . .

check out the so called freelance writer of the Huffpo story ? seems thats all she writes about ? You noticed almost all those stories are the same ?

 

[Cairenn]

Isn't Huffington post somewhat a content farm now? It isn't as bad as the examiner however.

 

[George B]

check out the so called freelance writer of the Huffpo story ? seems thats all she writes about ? You noticed almost all those stories are the same ?

Yes, She does seem like a one trick pony . . .

 

[George B]

Bring it, George.
What the hell are you waiting for?
You are the one making continual discussion......
Search out the experts, but first study the subject matter more carefully.....

Jay . . . this is what I am considering to email to NASA and the Royal Society . . . any suggestions or comments . . .

1) Hypothetical scenario assumptions:
a. Canada or Russia or both in cooperation begins conducting, sponsors and/or allows sulfur (SO2) injection in the lower stratosphere within and above their territorial boundaries or from country to country . . . they collectively have not made public announcements about their activities and have made their activities as covert as possible . . .

b. The amount injected will be somewhere above One Hundred Million Metric Tons per annum starting in 2014 . . .

c. A fleet of at least 14 heavy lift aircraft will fly sub polar or polar stratospheric missions primarily from Feb through Oct starting in 2014 . . .

2) Question: based on the above scenario and assumptions In your opinion could the existing world wide monitoring technology, surveillance systems, satellite imaging and sensors alert the scientific community that a large scale geoengineering program has begun and is ongoing? And if detected how soon after the injections began would you predict the scientific community would be able to confirm such activity?

3) Finally, if detected and confirmed what do you believe the scientific community would recommend to be done about this activity?

 

[Mick West]

I doubt you'd get any response from that George. As far as I can tell, nobody in the scientific community thinks there's a possibility of a covert geoengineering project.

 

[George B]

I doubt you'd get any response from that George. As far as I can tell, nobody in the scientific community thinks there's a possibility of a covert geoengineering project.

I have asked similar things before and received responses . . . I appreciate your comment but feel this is actually an important question based upon the recent press about the need to consider such actions . . . The worst thing to happen is a non response . . .

 

[Pete Tar]

Why not ask about a hypothetical situation in which a rogue scientist has invented a a method of drilling to the earth's core undetected in order to plant a nuclear bomb?
You are saying - here's a situation which is undetectable and we can't do anything about it, so what can we do about it?

And there seems to be evidence it *is* detectable but you want to ignore that.

 

[George B]

Why not ask about a hypothetical situation in which a rogue scientist has invented a a method of drilling to the earth's core undetected in order to plant a nuclear bomb?
You are saying - here's a situation which is undetectable and we can't do anything about it, so what can we do about it?

And there seems to be evidence it *is* detectable but you want to ignore that.

That is where we disagree . . . this is a real life possibility and no I do not personally believe it is detectable by anyone until it is well under way . . . so no one IMO will be able to stop anyone (through political or legal action) until some damage is already done . . . a favorite saying heard over and over again in my 30 plus years of military and government career was if you need to do something very controversial but it must be done . . . DO IT First and ask for forgiveness LATER . . .

 

[Cairenn]

Why don't you ask climatologists and meteorologists, the experts if it could be? Somehow the fact that you or me don't is not anything but a lack of knowledge.

 

[MikeC]

George why do you keep on with this sort of thing - if it isn't detectable then it isn't detectable and by definition no-one can detect whether it is underway or not!

But in order to achieve anything it will have to get to detectable limits - and we KNOW that detectable limits are much lower than the limit for any permanent climate change - because we have detected changes such as Pinatubo that have only caused temporary climate change, and ongoing changes in the atmosphere that have not caused any short term changes.

You've been on this trip for ages - arguing something about undetectable geoengineering that doesnt' do anything.

Well if it isn't detectable...and it isn't actually changing anything....THEN SO WHAT??

Going on about it in successive threads is pointless, irrational and getting to look a lot like trolling IMO.

 

[justanairlinepilot]

Seems the propaganda arm pushing Geoengineering is working real hard .

Summer ice in the Arctic will vanish in less that 40 years. That's according to the final draft of the UN's blockbuster climate report which comes out this Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/climate-change-20_b_3970194.html But we know its already happening NOW .

The most practical of the solar geo-engineering techniques involves sending a specially modified fleet of jets around the globe spraying sulfates into the atmosphere that would combine with pre-existing water vapor to form aerosols. When dispersed by the wind, these sulfates would cover the globe with a haze that could reflect an estimated one percent of solar radiation back out into space.

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/57126/

Given the gravity of the situation, many western scientists and governments are already discussing plan B options such as geoengineering.

Where are the facts? What a joke of an article

 

[George B]

Why don't you ask climatologists and meteorologists, the experts if it could be? Somehow the fact that you or me don't is not anything but a lack of knowledge.

That is who I am asking . . .

 

[George B]

George why do you keep on with this sort of thing - if it isn't detectable then it isn't detectable and by definition no-one can detect whether it is underway or not!

But in order to achieve anything it will have to get to detectable limits - and we KNOW that detectable limits are much lower than the limit for any permanent climate change - because we have detected changes such as Pinatubo that have only caused temporary climate change, and ongoing changes in the atmosphere that have not caused any short term changes.

You've been on this trip for ages - arguing something about undetectable geoengineering that doesnt' do anything.

Well if it isn't detectable...and it isn't actually changing anything....THEN SO WHAT??

Going on about it in successive threads is pointless, irrational and getting to look a lot like trolling IMO.

MikeC . . . I have been studying the proposals to accomplish geoengineering via reflective materials injected into the stratosphere for two years and I completely disagree with your conclusions . . . Pinatubo represented probably five times or more the amount of SO2 needed to alter global warming . . . secondarily, any program created to alter warming must be ramped up slowly, be reversible and fractal by design to not push the climate irreversibly too fast and/or far in any direction . . . so by design there would be several months where IMO no one could detect activities and then the levels would be just high enough to nudge the climate . . . so it would be slow and steady increase Very close to historical background fluctuations. That is the rub . . . IMO geoengineering could work and be very hard to ID for a very long time . . . unless people admitted what they were doing . . .

 

[justanairlinepilot]

MikeC . . . I have been studying the proposals to accomplish geoengineering via reflective materials injected into the stratosphere for two years and I completely disagree with your conclusions . . . Pinatubo represented probably five times or more the amount of SO2 needed to alter global warming . . . secondarily, any program created to alter warming must be ramped up slowly, be reversible and fractal by design to not push the climate irreversibly too fast and/or far in any direction . . . so by design there would be several months where IMO no one could detect activities and then the levels would be just high enough to nudge the climate . . . so it would be slow and steady increase Very close to historical background fluctuations. That is the rub . . . IMO geoengineering could work and be very hard to ID for a very long time . . . unless people admitted what they were doing . . .

What is your point with all of this? It's not happening so why are you focusing on it?

 

[George B]

What is your point with all of this? It's not happening so why are you focusing on it?

1) I am saying someone can start anytime and the assumption it would be detected and stopped before changes could be forthcoming IMO is not correct . . .
2) Then once detected no one could stop the people doing it . . .
3) So I propose asking the experts if these concerns are valid . . .

 

[JRBids]

WHo are the experts in your opinion and are you going to do that?

 

[MikeC]

MikeC . . . I have been studying the proposals to accomplish geoengineering via reflective materials injected into the stratosphere for two years and I completely disagree with your conclusions . . . Pinatubo represented probably five times or more the amount of SO2 needed to alter global warming . . .

And yet it had a temporary effect only.....

secondarily, any program created to alter warming must be ramped up slowly,

Why?

be reversible

Why?

and fractal by design

What does that even mean?

to not push the climate irreversibly too fast and/or far in any direction

Why? That would certainly be desirable from my point of view, but why would any actual programme HAVE TO do so?

. . . so by design there would be several months where IMO no one could detect activities and then the levels would be just high enough to nudge the climate

I certainly see no such case established by any of your posts - the only evidence is you saying so, which can be discounted with eth same amount of evidence you used - none.

. . . so it would be slow and steady increase Very close to historical background fluctuations.

If you have historical fluctuations at historical levels why would you not get historical effects - and therefore no actual effect beyond "the background" at all?

That is the rub . . . IMO geoengineering could work and be very hard to ID for a very long time . . . unless people admitted what they were doing . . .

The rub is that you continue to maintain that it is possible to have some form of geoengineering that is undetectable until it is already so far in place as to be unstoppable, despite the abundant evidence that small changes in the atmosphere ARE detectable long before they have nay apparent effects.

Ergo you are simply wrong.

 

[George B]

WHo are the experts in your opinion and are you going to do that?

NASA and the Royal Society . . . and yes I intend to ask their opinion . . .

 

[George B]

MikeC , for some reason (technical ) I cannot respond to your last post??????

 

[Mick West]

Mike's post had messed up quote tags, which I fixed. Try it now.

 

[George B]

Mike's post had messed up quote tags, which I fixed. Try it now.

Thanks . . . I will take it on tomorrow . . .

 

[Pete Tar]

Well if it's undetectable, then there's nothing that can be done about it, so one would have to go with the ethics of innocent until proven otherwise - ie, until rational empirical, not speculative, evidence mounts.
Or do you suggest pre-emptive action in case it's happening, because ' you can't prove it's not'?
There might be invisible monsters giving us cancer, what should we do about it?
I appreciate your concern is genuine and I'm not trying to mock it, but it's hard to see a practical application for it (the suspicion).