1. Cold_Halo

    Cold_Halo New Member

    Hello Mick & Co!

    As I understand it, Harvard is planning to commence their SAI project in the Tucson Desert in the next couple of months, if they haven't already?

    Probably the best chemtrail images I've seen so far are crop dusting & agent orange type stuff, which is all pretty low level. I know you guys put a lot of effert into explaining chemtrails away but I was wondering if any of you have any thoughts on what to expect from the SAI project, in terms of differences in appearence, dimming, visability over time etc? I think they are using balloons but still... It would be interesting to hear some predictions before the fact. I know there are [people] on both sides of every argument but while [some people] often come up with the same tired old arguments, debunkers seems to do a fair bit of copy & pasting! hahaha I'm sure there are a few here who have a pretty good grasp on things though...

    I don't know a great deal about it myself but as I understand it, they'll be using sulphor and not silver iodide / UAM32 that has been used for cloud seeding.? I'm guessing that they'll want it to stay up there for as long as possible, so perhaps it'll be a bit different to cloud seeding?

    On a slightly cheekier note, if it all goes well and they do start full scale roll-out, do you think you'll defend the program or have questions of your own? Up until now the argument has been one of conspiracy vs trust & facts - questions of ethicacy, effectiveness, risk etc have more or less been ignored or dismissed... Now we find ourselves here though, and while it is a science experiment - it's potentially the start of the biggest experiment ever undertaken! It's quite likely that it will have enormous impacts far beyond science. Social, political etc etc etc.

    I'm pretty curious to see how it all sits with you, now that it really could become a legitimate, state sponsored reality. Without all the tinfoil to contend with, what's everyone expecting?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2019
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What exactly are you referring to? This?
    https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/keutschgroup/scopex
    I doubt that will be visible from the ground. If so it will look like a tiny hazy streak.

    I geoengineering actually becomes a reality I don't think my opinion will have any relevance. The amount of mainstream coverage will eclipse anything I have to say.

    Not true at all, lots of researchers have addressed or discussed ethics, effectiveness, and risk, for 30+ years. Example:

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb40&q=effectiveness of geoengineering&lookup=0&hl=en
    Metabunk 2019-05-11 19-19-47.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=ethics+of+geoengineering&btnG=

    Metabunk 2019-05-11 19-20-59.

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=risks+of+geoengineering&btnG=
    Metabunk 2019-05-11 19-21-37.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 2
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    There are people that debunk the hypothetical Solar Radiation Management idea?

    I'm expecting to be be long in the grave before such a thing could pass legislation and then get through the courts and all the appeals. Of course, by then -according to climate scientists- we'll all be melting so i'm guessing the peoples of Then will be happy for anything to stop the melting. Or they'll all just move to better climes.
     
  4. Cold_Halo

    Cold_Halo New Member

    I'm not as handy with the quotes & replies as you guys but I'm sure It's not a big deal... Yes that is the project I'm referring to.


    Mick: "I doubt that will be visible from the ground. If so it will look like a tiny hazy streak."

    Fair enough, one vote for a barely visible streak. Predicting it will hold its shape, or by"hazy" do you mean it will soon blur out to nothing? I've read a few things about how the full scale roll out might look but purely speculation. As I understand it the objective is to mimic a volcano eruption - so presumably at scale this would be far more noticeable than a liitle smudge, as volcanoes tend to give off fairly impressive plumes...


    Mick: "Not true at all, lots of researchers have addressed or discussed ethics, effectiveness, and risk, for 30+ years."

    Those all seem to be scholarly articles? Yes, the ethics of geoengineering have been discussed since the idea first came up. As far as I'm aware that was quite a bit further back than 30yrs. I believe that there were attampts at geoengineering prior to WWII and that cloud seeding came very shortly after WWII. Certainly the Skywater (USA) & Cumulus (UK) attracted plenty of attention and sparked many debates. I expect that they are still ongoing, hence your fine website. My point about the fact vs conspiracy was referring to these kinds of discussions, the chemtrail vs debunker type arguments. I have not invested much of my life into the subject but I think 100% of the arguments I've seen on Chemtrails have been about whether or not they exist, or who is behind them.
    I was as specifically asking for your opinion on SAI programs. You and anyone else who would care to venture one... It seems a bit odd to me that you would be so vocal in the arguments about how utterly useless the mainstream is at covering actual science but then say that their stirling coverage will eclipse any opinions you may have in the future. I don't mean to be rude and I'm aware that you don't know me, I expect that after doing this for quite some time you have a great many opinions about SAI or geoenginneering as a whole...


    Deirdre: "There are people that debunk the hypothetical Solar Radiation Management idea ?"

    I'm not sure if "debunk" is an appropriate word here but there are certainly people who oppose the idea of SRM (SAI is one idea proposed). They do so on a number of different fronts ranging from science to ethics, you can find plenty of them by simply googling "Solar Radiation Management Pros & Cons. Yes, at this point they are just ideas and need to be tested and so on but still, yes, there are conceivible problems that may arise and major problems that they already know it won't solve. For example, it will not remove any carbon at all from the atmosphere, it will not remove any co2 from the oceans, it will not stop polar ice from melting, it could benefit certain locations differently than others and some locations may not like the results at all. As I say, you can google for more, there is plenty in the mainstream and credible sources. Of course there are ethical debates too...


    Deirdre: "I'm expecting to be be long in the grave before such a thing could pass legislation and then get through the courts and all the appeals. Of course, by then -according to climate scientists- we'll all be melting so i'm guessing the peoples of Then will be happy for anything to stop the melting. Or they'll all just move to better climes."

    I'm guessing that this is a bit of a troll? As far as I'm aware, the SAI thing has been talked about in earnest since about 2006-10. I'm sure there are earlier obscure references but that's when it began in earnest. I'm sure we've all seen the Brennan (CIA) video. So from a hypothetical to a real life experiment in far less than a lifetime - do you really think you'll be dead and gone by the time they roll it out, if it works?
    I'm not sure what you mean about courts an appeals? I know that legislation must be upheld by the courts but I'm not sure what that has to do with this? There were plenty of democratic, fair & balanced people around when the Patriot Act went through, yet it did...
    I have no idea what you mean by the last part. You seem to imply that climate scientists are somehow lesser than other scientist (or perhaps another group who are better informed when it comes to climate?) while exagerating their predictions for comic effect. It seems as if you are trying to discredit them and their work, as you have merely indicated to some point in the far future and then credited them (all climate scientists) with predicting that either us (people) will be melting by then, or everything will be melting by then (as you guessed that the peoples of then would be happy for anything to stop melting).

    Do you mean to imply that you do not believe in global warming, or in their predictions for future climate? If so, why on earth do you have such a keen interest in discussing geoengineering? You seem tobe quite an active member on here..

    Let's be serious - climate change, global warming, geoengineering, cloud seeding, SRM, SAI - these are all ideas borne out of climate science. When SAI tests begin, it'll be climate scientists doing the research and making recommendations & predictions for real world applications. I have no idea what you are trying to say here, other than you are unwilling to make any predictions based only on your own understanding. Does that sound right, you'll wait to copy & paste the facts?


    I've edited some spelling and I apologise for the poor grammar.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2019
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It quite clearly says in the article that will be 1 kg spread over a region 100km long and 1km in diameter. That's about 78,000,000 cubic meters. A cumulus cloud weighs about 0.5g per cubic meter. So a cloud of this volume would weight 39,000 kg. Hence the resultant streak will have only 0.0025% of the density of a cloud. So it's unlikely to rise above a smudge unless they are spraying something that triggers the formation of a cloud, like steam.

    Please don't paraphrase. I said:
    As you noted I gave academic references, there's already a steady stream of articles in non-academic publications, including the mainstream media. If this experiment happens, then there will be a lot more. Just search the news:
    https://www.google.com/search?q=ethics+geoengineering&source=lnms&tbm=nws

    This isn't an opinion site. It's a site for investigating claims, and exposing false claims, and discussing how best to tackle such problems. There's a "chemtrails exemption" for historical reasons, but this thread is veering away even from that. My opinion on Stratospheric Aerosol Inject is that it is a last-ditch band-aid that is fraught with problems and risks but is relatively cheap. I think it's something we should research so we can establish governance based on solid science. I don't know what will happen, but I suspect significant climate change is inevitable, and SAI might eventually be used to reduce the effects. I recommend reading David Keith's book on the topic.
    https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/a-case-climate-engineering
     
  6. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    Debunking is not opposing an idea.

    You seem to be conflating multiple topics.



    No.



    Yes.

    You dont seem to know enough about American politics and culture, and this isnt the forum to really go into such things.

    Wow. you really like to paraphrase. Paraphrasing is against Posting Guidelines. I suggest you read them.


    I'm exaggerating politics to comic effect. Clearly my paragraph is about legislation. Perhaps if you work on your behavior of taking people's statements out of context, you'd have a better understanding of the whole SRM topic.