Is geoengineering occuring?

PCWilliams

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Hi all,

I'm in the process of sorting out another "chemtrails are geoengineering" argument and i want to tell this guy geoengineering is not occurring despite the existence of patents for geoengineering.

I know i've read on this forum that geoengineering is not occurring, it's even in a video by Mick. But then on the Debunked: KMIR6 Geoengineering the Skies (chemtrails) page, one of the links goes to WikiPedia were it says "Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started."

Can i get a clarification?

Thanks,

Paul
 
I think the safest thing to say is that there is no evidence that Geo-Engineering is currently being undertaken.
 
PCWilliams said:
Hi all,

I'm in the process of sorting out another "chemtrails are geoengineering" argument and i want to tell this guy geoengineering is not occurring despite the existence of patents for geoengineering.

I know i've read on this forum that geoengineering is not occurring, it's even in a video by Mick. But then on the Debunked: KMIR6 Geoengineering the Skies (chemtrails) page, one of the links goes to WikiPedia were it says "Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started."

Can i get a clarification?

Thanks,

Paul
Click to expand...

See:

Mick said:
Here you go:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103/S106837390905001X

Results of a field experiment on studying solar radiation passing in the visible wavelength range are described with the model aerosol media created in the surface atmosphere. High-efficiency thermocondensation generators were used for creating model aerosol media. The index of refraction and an average size of the aerosol particles formed are close to those characteristic of the natural stratospheric aerosol. The composition and technical characteristics of the equipment complex used in the experiments to control aerosol optical and microphysical parameters and meteorological conditions of the experiment are considered. The Gaussian model of impurity dispersion in the boundary layer is used for the analysis and interpretation of measurement results. It is found that with a number concentration of aerosol particles of ∼102​–103​ cm−3​ (which corresponds to the aerosol density in the deposited layer of about 1–10 mg/m2​ with the layer thickness along the ray path of about 100 m) the solar radiation attenuation with artificial aerosol layers accounts for 1 to 10%. Model estimates are in satisfactory agreement with the measurement results.
Content from External Source
http://media.cigionline.org/geoeng/... Radiation Passing through Aerosol Layers.pdf

Click to expand...

That's all there is, some smoke machines on a helicopter, tested to see how much they block the sun. Not really a field test at all, as it's very low level, and just a tiny bit of smoke. David Keith said it was basically a publicity stunt.
 
Last edited:
PCWilliams said:
Hi all,

I'm in the process of sorting out another "chemtrails are geoengineering" argument and i want to tell this guy geoengineering is not occurring despite the existence of patents for geoengineering.

I know i've read on this forum that geoengineering is not occurring, it's even in a video by Mick. But then on the Debunked: KMIR6 Geoengineering the Skies (chemtrails) page, one of the links goes to WikiPedia were it says "Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started."

Can i get a clarification?

Thanks,

Paul
Click to expand...
Just be honest with him and tell him geoengineering is happening and your getting payed by David Keith to divert his attention away from the truth . :)
 
I love you guys!!! LOL!

I've decided to take a different route all together. I'm going back to a point several people have made here. This is what i've written (so far): " ... whether geoengineering is happening or not is completely and totally irrelevant. Conspiracists still have the burden of proving the contrails above our head are anything other than ice crystals containing anything more than normal exhaust from the aircraft engine(s)."

I thought it wise to not even enter into the "is geoengineering happening or not" debate. It seems to be a diversion from the bottom line.

What say ya' all!! :rolleyes:
 
PCWilliams said:
I love you guys!!! LOL!

I've decided to take a different route all together. I'm going back to a point several people have made here. This is what i've written (so far): " ... whether geoengineering is happening or not is completely and totally irrelevant. Conspiracists still have the burden of proving the contrails above our head are anything other than ice crystals containing anything more than normal exhaust from the aircraft engine(s)."

I thought it wise to not even enter into the "is geoengineering happening or not" debate. It seems to be a diversion from the bottom line.

What say ya' all!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I like to simply say that there is no evidence that geo-engineering is being done now (which is true). Keep in mind that geo-engineering is (per Wiki), "the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming." Even if there are some small-scale or one-off experiments into techniques that could be used for GE in the future, that would not mean that GE is being done now. And it's unlikely that SRM, in practice, would cause something that looks like persistent contrails.
 
Belfrey said:
I like to simply say that there is no evidence that geo-engineering is being done now (which is true). Keep in mind that geo-engineering is (per Wiki), "the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming." Even if there are some small-scale or one-off experiments into techniques that could be used for GE in the future, that would not mean that GE is being done now. And it's unlikely that SRM, in practice, would cause something that looks like persistent contrails.
Click to expand...

This is great stuff. I truly appreciate the input.
 
PCWilliams said:
But then on the Debunked: KMIR6 Geoengineering the Skies (chemtrails) page, one of the links goes to WikiPedia were it says "Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started."
Click to expand...

Research had been done, but that doesn´t mean that some crazy scientists are making Geo-Engineering.

I´ve readed a long Geoengineering-Paper published by the german ministry for resaerch (Bundesforschungsministerium), in this they´ve descriped the most important experiments done yet. Most are computer-Simulations but some are so called "natural Experiments". That means that a natural Phenomenom is researched under geo-engineering purposes...

Such a "natural Experiment" is - for example - a vulcan eruption.

The most common one is done in this Dissertation from Prof. Frank Arnold:
http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/10770/
(36 MB PDF should be downloadable for everyone)

Airborne ion trap CIMS using SF5- reagent ions: Atmospheric trace gas detection in the tropopause region and in aircraft exhaust plumes

This work aims at the investigation of sulfur containing plumes in the tropopause region. For the first time an ion trap chemical ionization mass spectrometer (ITCIMS) was equipped with an SF5- ion source for the detection of SO2, HCl, HNO3 and HONO. This novel combination was tested in the laboratory and deployed on the research aircraft Falcon during the CONCERT (CONtrail and Cirrus ExpeRimenT) campaign. In October 2008 an SO2 layer in the lower stratosphere with mole fractions up to 510 pptv was detected, originating from the Mt. Kasatochi (Aleutian island) eruption in August 2008. Correlation analysis show an enhancement of the molar abundance ratios HCl/O3 and HNO3/NOy of 19 % and HNO3/O3 of 50 % inside the SO2 plume. The data were used to derive an upper limit of the e-folding lifetime of SO2 in the lower stratosphere at northern latitudes of 60 days. Besides natural sources, anthropogenic emissions of sulfur and nitrogen oxides from aircraft are discussed. SO2 and first laboratory-calibrated HONO measurements in young aircraft exhaust plumes of ten commercial airliners were conducted. Employing the measured HONO/NO molar abundance ratio of 0.042 +- 0.010, the e ffective conversion efficiency of fuel sulfur to sulfuric acid was indirectly inferred. It compares well to former measurements.
Click to expand...

This i would call a "Field Experiment", but the field was made by nature. A vulcan erupts an makes a big Sulfer-plume into the lower Stratosphere.Scientists taked this chance to make their measurements.

This is "research", not "doing it"
 
Belfrey said:
I like to simply say that there is no evidence that geo-engineering is being done now (which is true). Keep in mind that geo-engineering is (per Wiki), "the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming."
Click to expand...

Yes, but a lot of Geo-Engineering-experiments about Storing/converting CO2 or feeding algaes near the Antarctic had been done.

"Geo-Engineering" is just a preamble for all methods that have an influence to climate.

Chemtrail-Believers allways think about "Stripes in the sky" when they read "Geo-Engineering"
 

Attachments

  • mauna loa3.jpg
    mauna loa3.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 600
Last edited by a moderator:
Whether geoengineering has been attempted and if chemtrails are an example of such an effort are two different questions . . .
 
George B said:
Whether geoengineering has been attempted and if chemtrails are an example of such an effort are two different questions . . .
Click to expand...

Although a positive answer to the latter would prove the former :) But not the other way around. Conspiracy Theorists tend to conflate the terms.
 
Mick said:
Although a positive answer to the latter would prove the former :) But not the other way around. Conspiracy Theorists tend to conflate the terms.
Click to expand...
No doubt they do but since they don't have a generally accepted (narrow) published definition of chemtrails they accept almost any association with trails in the sky (visible or not) and any activity with aircraft and substances injected into the atmosphere . . . actual or proposed . . . including combustion products . . .

Suggest before anyone starts a conversation with a chemtrail conspiracy advocate they extract the person's personal definition of what a chemtrail is and what it is not . . . otherwise most of your efforts will be simply circular debates over semantics .. . .
 
George B said:
No doubt they do but since they don't have a generally accepted (narrow) published definition of chemtrails they accept almost any association with trails in the sky (visible or not) and any activity with aircraft and substances injected into the atmosphere . . . actual or proposed . . . including combustion products . . .

Suggest before anyone starts a conversation with a chemtrail conspiracy advocate they extract the person's personal definition of what a chemtrail is and what it is not . . . otherwise most of your efforts will be simply circular debates over semantics .. . .
Click to expand...

I asked Dane Wigington for a definition of a contrail, and he said, "Maybe we should do that."

Duh........
 
George B said:
No doubt they do but since they don't have a generally accepted (narrow) published definition of chemtrails they accept almost any association with trails in the sky (visible or not) and any activity with aircraft and substances injected into the atmosphere . . . actual or proposed . . . including combustion products . . .

Suggest before anyone starts a conversation with a chemtrail conspiracy advocate they extract the person's personal definition of what a chemtrail is and what it is not . . . otherwise most of your efforts will be simply circular debates over semantics .. . .
Click to expand...

THAT has been my experience. They move the goal posts mid discussion. You need to first negotiate the ground rules for the debate to include the definition of a chamtrails.
 
Jay Reynolds said:
This is about as plain as you can get:
View attachment 3115

Paul, here is background:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/11...bunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot
Click to expand...
Some interesting information . . . Anything changing since chemtrails became a concept???

The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1&

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Certainly there is a lot of study going on - that has never been in doubt - and by definition if it ever happens we are getting closer all the time! :)

However IMO the "jury is still out" on what form it will take - for example would most people recognize increased use of renewables for generating electricity + a massive increase in the number of electric cars on the road as "geoengineering"??
 
MikeC said:
Certainly there is a lot of study going on - that has never been in doubt - and by definition if it ever happens we are getting closer all the time! :)

However IMO the "jury is still out" on what form it will take - for example would most people recognize increased use of renewables for generating electricity + a massive increase in the number of electric cars on the road as "geoengineering"??
Click to expand...
I cannot argue; however, the cited article above makes it clear the Russians are enamored with sulfur injection into the stratosphere along with other advocates . . . as the most likely short term strategy . . .
 
The Russians might try it, if they think that they can do it without getting caught. They have never shown a tendency to worry about the effects of many of their actions.
 
Would the Russians want to do this? They are one of the countries that might benefit from a warming climate. That said, it was a Russian scientist named Budykin who came up with this idea in the '70s. The Hughes patent expanded on his ideas by running through some math on how much material would be needed for a given degree of cooling.
 
Steve Funk said:
Would the Russians want to do this? They are one of the countries that might benefit from a warming climate. That said, it was a Russian scientist named Budykin who came up with this idea in the '70s. The Hughes patent expanded on his ideas by running through some math on how much material would be needed for a given degree of cooling.
Click to expand...
Interesting . . . yes, the Russians may possibly benefit from some warming . . . but they are the ones now making the biggest waves about the issue . . . also, they have an abundance of sulfur from their oil and gas production, are ideally situated like Canada to the lowest access to the stratosphere along with adequate rail and other infrastructure to inject from one to five hundred million metric tons of sulfur into the polar and sub-polar stratosphere . . .
 
The developing problem with the global climate is not simply warming. The problem is that the warming is not uniform, or to be even more precise, the warming that is occurring not preserving the thermal gradient in the atmosphere - especially in the northern hemisphere.
Any geoengineering that is propose must first have to objective of restoring the thermal gradient between the tropics and the polar regions.
And it is different in the two hemispheres - the Southern Hemisphere is not as badly affected.

The thermal gradient problem manifests in slower westerlies and a meandering jet. This results blocking patterns, which results in very wet or very dry conditions or long cold outbreaks, or heat waves depending on where you are in relation to the block pattern. This is why the weather is going screwy. Russia will get some warming, and she will get some cooling. We all will, more and more.

Willy-nilly dumping of sulphur, or something, to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation is NOT going to fix this. To restore the thermal gradient we need to cool the Arctic, or heat the tropics. The latter is not an option, obviously. The best way to cool the Arctic is to remove whatever it is that is preventing the heat from leaving - the CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to sequester CO2 out of the air on a HUGE scale.

The OTHER big problem is that a LOT of excess heat is going into the oceans. There is mega-peta-kilojoules of anomalous heat being stored there, and God knows what the effect of this will be on the ocean circulations which transport heat around the Earth. The timescale of this system is hundreds, maybe thousands of years. God knows, but he's not telling us.
 
Ross Marsden said:
The developing problem with the global climate is not simply warming. The problem is that the warming is not uniform, or to be even more precise, the warming that is occurring not preserving the thermal gradient in the atmosphere - especially in the northern hemisphere.
Any geoengineering that is propose must first have to objective of restoring the thermal gradient between the tropics and the polar regions.
And it is different in the two hemispheres - the Southern Hemisphere is not as badly affected.

The thermal gradient problem manifests in slower westerlies and a meandering jet. This results blocking patterns, which results in very wet or very dry conditions or long cold outbreaks, or heat waves depending on where you are in relation to the block pattern. This is why the weather is going screwy. Russia will get some warming, and she will get some cooling. We all will, more and more.

Willy-nilly dumping of sulphur, or something, to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation is NOT going to fix this. To restore the thermal gradient we need to cool the Arctic, or heat the tropics. The latter is not an option, obviously. The best way to cool the Arctic is to remove whatever it is that is preventing the heat from leaving - the CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to sequester CO2 out of the air on a HUGE scale.

The OTHER big problem is that a LOT of excess heat is going into the oceans. There is mega-peta-kilojoules of anomalous heat being stored there, and God knows what the effect of this will be on the ocean circulations which transport heat around the Earth. The timescale of this system is hundreds, maybe thousands of years. God knows, but he's not telling us.
Click to expand...
What you say may well be absolutely correct . . . that does not mean that the decision makers or a rogue group with adequate funding and resources could not implement a stratopheric injection program for short term considerations . . . the idea has been discussed, proposed and cost analyzed for years . . .

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034019/article
 
Last edited:
It should be noted that China has a pretty extensive weather modification program. It sure as heck isn't foolproof, but they spend a fair bit of cash blasting off shells into clouds to either seed or bust them.
 
Grieves said:
It should be noted that China has a pretty extensive weather modification program. It sure as heck isn't foolproof, but they spend a fair bit of cash blasting off shells into clouds to either seed or bust them.
Click to expand...
I agree . . . it demonstrates an overall willingness as a nation state not only to allow localized weather modification but to use such activities to accomplish goals sponsored on behalf of the entire nation . . . the question not being if such activities were considered unlawful but only what is the scale of such activities . . . remember world wide geoengineering could be accomplished (sulfur injection initiated) entirely within the borders of either Russia or Canada without the need to cross any international border . . .
 
Last edited:
All a rogue group could do is to demonstrate a local, temporary change in something simple like cloud cover. The problem is that it would be hard to prove that their actions was the cause.
 
Pete Tar said:
Wouldn't the scale of the resources and funding needed rule out 'rogue' groups? Can a terrorist cell accomplish this?
Click to expand...
A rogue group I am talking about is Russia ala Putin or a G20 with assistance ala Bill Gates, etc.
 
Cairenn said:
All a rogue group could do is to demonstrate a local, temporary change in something simple like cloud cover. The problem is that it would be hard to prove that their actions was the cause.
Click to expand...
I disagree . . . Russia could easily accomplish such a task . . .
 
Russia or China could, but they would not be a rogue group, but a rogue nation. Gates can't afford it, his charity is not wealthy and I believe that it has public reporting also.
 
Cairenn said:
Russia or China could, but they would not be a rogue group, but a rogue nation. Gates can't afford it, his charity is not wealthy and I believe that it has public reporting also.
Click to expand...
Why would someone fear public disclosure . . . it isn't illegal or breaks any Treaty . . . Bill Gates is not the only potential source of funds . . . George Soros for example and many others . . . and China and Russia could be considered rogue by ignoring the UN geoengineering moratorium . . .
 
Last edited:
So is a treaty different to a moratorium?

What would you suggest to guard against it? The atmosphere is already highly monitored, so it would be apparent when it happens.

Or are you just saying there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, so be worried about a hypothetical scenario?
 
Pete Tar said:
So is a treaty different to a moratorium?

What would you suggest to guard against it? The atmosphere is already highly monitored, so it would be apparent when it happens.

Or are you just saying there's nothing anyone can do to stop it, so be worried about a hypothetical scenario?
Click to expand...
All I have said is that it isn't illegal (a moratorium is voluntary a Treaty usually is not) . . . Russia is making waves with IPCC and the UN to include geoengineering as a potential short term mitigation option to global warming, Russia has more than enough sulfur compounds to accomplish such an objective and the ability to conduct such an operation within their borders, the costs are within the reach of almost any G20 nation . . . it all depends on the urgency of the threat and the willingness of the parties capable of accomplish the operation to engage in the act . . . of course public opinion is a factor but if you feel like you are saving the world one can take the heat . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C
NorCal Dave
Claim: The Plasmoid Unification Model (PUM) of Malcolm Bendall provides "free energy".
2
Replies
66
Views
21K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools
2
Replies
58
Views
12K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top