Geoengineering illustration [From New Scientist, 2009]

[Steve Funk]

Has anyone seen the original source of this illustration. I can't bring up anything that isn't a chemtrailer source, but it looks like it came from a serious paper somewhere. I'm in a facebook conversation with a local about this. One thing I notice is that it only gives aerosols one dot for readiness. This probably reflects the unsolved technological problems, including clumping of metallic particles due to electrostatic attraction, and lack of a plane that can reach 60,000 feet with a heavy payload.

 

[Mick West]

It's from an article in New Scientist, a UK popular science magazine.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...the-only-climate-solution-left.html?full=true



The text can be found here:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/msg118923.html&sid=#118923

Consider atmospheric geoengineering — pumping reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight — seen as a way to cut the effects of global warming. In 1991, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the atmosphere's average temperature worldwide almost one degree Fahrenheit, a kind of "global dimming," serving as an inspiration for the idea. Such high-altitude aerosols, different from the ones found in spray cans, can play a big role in climate.

A 2006 paper in the journal Science, for example, written by the eminent atmospheric scientist Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, suggested that annually blasting roughly 500,000 tons of sulfur (about 7% of yearly sulfur production) into the stratosphere every year for three decades would prevent global warming. But there is that acid rain issue.

Content from external source

The low readiness seems to largely be related to the lack of understanding of what it will do.

 

[CapnPegleg]

Actually, with the key on @Mick West 's image, that is the highest level of readiness. Years vs. centuries or decades.

 

[Mick West]

Actually, with the key on @Mick West 's image, that is the highest level of readiness. Years vs. centuries or decades.

Ah right, the lack of understanding is in the "Flaw" section.

Remember though this is just a popular science magazine. I used to read it as a teenager. It's not an actual science journal.

 

[Gundersen]

Just curious, is this illustration used as some kind of evidence for chemtrails / geoengineering? (I'm on my phone, so can't do the image search myself)

Sometimes I feel that both denial and acknowledgement (like this) are interpreted as proof of a conspiracy.

 

[Mick West]

Just curious, is this illustration used as some kind of evidence for chemtrails / geoengineering? (I'm on my phone, so can't do the image search myself)

Sometimes I feel that both denial and acknowledgement (like this) are interpreted as proof of a conspiracy.

Yes, pretty much any discussion of doing geoengineering in the future is taken as evidence that it has been done for decades.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, pretty much any discussion of doing geoengineering in the future is taken as evidence that it has been done for decades.

Yes, scientists discussing geongineering is taken as proof, because it's scientists talking about it. But the part where scientists are talking about it being only a future possibility is ignored, because all scientists are paid to lie!

 

[Gundersen]

Yes, scientists discussing geongineering is taken as proof, because it's scientists talking about it. But the part where scientists are talking about it being only a future possibility is ignored, because all scientists are paid to lie!

Exactly my feeling! What ever is useable is trustworthy, what contradicts the belief is part of a cover-up. So everything can be used as evidence.

Like contrails in old photos/movies. A lack of them is evidence of the phenomenon being a new thing, but if they are present they are added to alter our perception of what a sky should look like. This illustration gives me the same feeling. It does neither prove nor disprove aerosols being used, but it can still be presented as a "sign", apparently.

 

[Mick West]

If you do a Google Image Search for "proof of geoengineering", then you get a similar image:


http://www.climatecentral.org/news/russia-urges-un-climate-report-to-include-geoengineering-16512

 

[Gundersen]

If you do a Google Image Search for "proof of geoengineering", then you get a similar image:


http://www.climatecentral.org/news/russia-urges-un-climate-report-to-include-geoengineering-16512

So are the giant space mirrors also a reality then? I will be pissed if the government has hid something as amazing as that from me!

 

[cloudspotter]

So are the giant space mirrors also a reality then? I will be pissed if the government has hid something as amazing as that from me!

Yeah there's been a few times when this has been brought up as proof that aerosol spraying is actually happening and I've countered with some comment about the giant space mirrors looking beautiful when they catch the setting sun.

 

[SR1419]

Yes, pretty much any discussion of doing geoengineering in the future is taken as evidence that it has been done for decades.

...and thats a shame.

Here is the MSM (NYT) with an article in today's paper on SRM et al...which is explicit that its a potential future solution and not something currently underway- it will probably fall on deaf ears:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/s...0141110&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=25300769&_r=0

David Keith, a researcher at Harvard University and a leading expert on the subject, has suggested that if this kind of geoengineering, called solar radiation management, or S.R.M., is ever undertaken, it should be done slowly and carefully, so it could be halted if damaging weather patterns or other problems arose. The goal should only be to slow the rate that the atmosphere is warming under climate change, he said, not to reverse it.....


Very little money is set aside worldwide for geoengineering research. But even the suggestion of conducting field experiments can cause an uproar.

“People like lines in the sand to be drawn, and there’s a very obvious one which says, fine, if you want to do stuff on a desktop or a lab bench, that’s O.K.,” said Matthew Watson, a researcher at the University of Bristol in Britain. “But as soon as you start going out into the real world, then that’s different.”

Dr. Watson knows all about those lines in the sand: He led a geoengineering research project, financed by the British government, that included a relatively benign test of one proposed technology. In 2011, the researchers planned to tether a balloon about a half-mile in the sky and try to pump a small amount of plain water up to it through a hose.

The proposal prompted protests in Britain, was delayed for half a year and then canceled, although ostensibly for other reasons.

In the United States, Dr. Keith and his colleagues have proposed a balloon experiment that would test the effect of sulfate droplets on atmospheric ozone — a potential trouble spot for solar engineering. Dr. Keith receives some private money from Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, for his geoengineering research, but says that for this experiment, which could cost $10 million or more, most of the funds would have to come from the government, for reasons of accountability and transparency.

Content from external source