If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

George B

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program [ICAAIP]. . . I would do the following . . .
-------------
MY CHOICE: GEOENGINEERING using Sulfur injection


For the purposes of this Thread I am going to choose the mission of Geoengineering and Sulfur Compounds as the substances used in the intentional covert atmospheric aerosol injection program (ICAAIP) . . . though many others have been speculated. . . .Sulfur Compound Injection appears to be the most effective, is an additive to existing natural processes like volcanic eruptions, the easiest to pull off and has the most data and research available to the public . . .


---------------

TO ACCOMPLISH an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP), I would do the following . . .


1) Pick my objectives, goals and mission . . . In this case . . . I Pick: geoengineering using sulfur compounds injected into the stratosphere to alter the rate of global climate change
2) access the technical capabilities at my disposal, review the history, scientific knowledge, locate the experts, retain those experts needed and identify any potential individuals or organizations that could blow the whistle on my activities and strategize ways to marginalize and/or neutralize them . . .
3) Leverage any pre-existing practices to accomplish my purposes without risk . . . Such as . . . encourage the use of high sulfur jet fuels or at least keep the maximum allowable concentration of sulfur (3,000 ppm) as high as possible as long as possible . . .
4) access the security risks and develop the policies and measures that would be necessary
5) project the infrastructure, budget, timeline, probabilities of success versus risks of discovery, identify all legal and criminal liabilities
6) do computer simulations and experimental prototyping
7) procure infrastructure for implementation, buy land and necessary facilities, contract supplies, aircraft, personnel, and all other needs prior to deployment, develop cover stories for all activities and minimize information to "need to know, only"
8) develop and test the capability in small test runs
9) rehearse methods of concealment and strategies to respond if discovered . . Develop .contingencies to evade discovery, misdirection, etc.
10) Implement small scale operation and evaluate outcome
11) implement full scale operations
12) Monitor procedures, process, impact and maintain security . . . neutralize any threat to operations, periodically measure outcome and
metrics of success . . .


--------------

On initial investigation I would have found near consensus from the scientific community that the easiest, most cost effective and quickest way to alter the rate of global climate change was to increase the amount of sulfur compounds and particulates into the stratosphere or at least as high in the atmosphere as I could cost effectively get it. . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)


Scientific American published the following about the general public. . . .
A full 72 percent of participants in the survey, published in Environmental Research Letters, said they "supported" or "somewhat supported" the study of solar radiation management (SRM). The technique seeks to inject sulfur into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-support-for-geoengineering-blocking-sunshine


------------

First, I would find and utilize one of the most famous and influential scientist of the 20th century. . . .for example . . . Dr Edward Teller . . . Who suggested stratospheric injection of aerosols . . .note: he was one of the fathers of the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project and Star Wars . . I would have retained his services and leveraged his reputation and those around him to my benefit . . .


Next, I would then use his think tank at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to fill in my technical and speculative issues . . .


Then, I would then find a corporate partner with the Governmental clout and capability to round out my covert technical needs . . . For example. . . Raytheon Corporation . . . aka. . . . the new Hughes Aviation Corporation . . . I would have a couple of their scientists submit a few unclassified patents to push speculation away from my sulfur strategy towards aluminum and other particulates being a potential culprit incase someone were to discover some ICAAIP operations.

Contract one or more refineries or natural gas producers to procure about 1,000,000 to 1.25 Million Metric tons of selected sulfur compounds . . . Canada would be a perfect source. . .they have an over abundance of the stuff. . . http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-metals/business-market/canadian-minerals-yearbook/2009-review/3598


Finally, contract an air operations firm to retrofit and fly a few aircraft at about $1.25 Billion 2008 dollars per year ( according to . . .lines 138 - lines 143 and graph on line 528 in http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf according to this paper the required amount of sulfur aerosol can be delivered easily by dedicated flights by only [. . . line 528] using nine (9) KC 10 Extenders or equivalent aircraft, each flying three (3) flights a day, 250 days per year. . . . 27 flights per day).




They could easily operate from one or more locations in the world . . . Canada would also be perfect for the air operations . . They are also close to source of the compounds needed and have remote airfields, as well as close to the lowest altitude for the stratosphere on the globe around 36,000 feet. . . .where injection would the most effective cost effective. . . .
----------
 
I assume George B. wants to promote himself for a job at NWO ...

Seriously, the sulfur injection ("artificial volcano") is openly talked about, but not with much fervor. Once I heard a talk from a meteorologist I know. The amounts of necessary material are vast - as in a volcano eruption; the logistical efforts would have to be immense. Normal jet planes would not even be able to reach the necessary altitude, making rockets the most feasible way of transport.

No point at all in keeping it secret. It would be obvious.
 
First thing on my list would be...

1. Don't make it so damn noticeable, please.
 
If you did inject sulfur compounds into the atmosphere you could lead to all kinds of environmental problems. Sudbury, Ontario with its heavy nickel mining, an area with thick coniferous forests, looked like the moon after all the sulfur induced acid rain. It would be hard to hide everything that George B is describing, especially the changes to the environment.
 
Des O,

I believe the idea is to bring the suphur into a level way above the troposphere. I am not qualified to judge if it will stay there, but if Paul Crutzen seriously believes that this is the smaller of two evils, I won't dismiss the approach immediately, even if the challenge would be enormous.
 
The amount projected by some research is only one million metric tons . . . rather small actually . . .
 
I really do hope we never have to do this sort of thing JFDee, because our atmosphere is extremely complex. Changing one thing suddenly could have a major impact on something else, and predicting those impacts is nearly impossible.

GeorgeB - you are correct, the debate about whether to do this would prevent you, under current circumstances. However you would have to assume that if you were to carry out your plan, we would be really feeling the effects of global warming and the debate about its existence would be over. Therefore, would there be as much resistance to geoengineering if we could no longer grow food in most areas?
 
It really may not be . . . Few dedicated flights . . . Hidden among thousands of persistent trails . . . Perfect cover for a covert operation . . .
 
Des O said:
If you did inject sulfur compounds into the atmosphere you could lead to all kinds of environmental problems. Sudbury, Ontario with its heavy nickel mining, an area with thick coniferous forests, looked like the moon after all the sulfur induced acid rain. It would be hard to hide everything that George B is describing, especially the changes to the environment.
Click to expand...
Stratopheric sulfur injection computer models doubling, or more, the sulfur concentrations needed to change the climate (1 to 1.5 Tg . . . Millions of Metric Tons) has shown little or no harm to the ecosystems due to acid rain and dry deposition. . . .


First paragraph & Line 157 of conclusion . . . Important study indicates acid deposition would not harm environment ( up to 5Tg in tropics and 3TG in Arctic )
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/aciddeposition7.pdf
 
Mick said:
If someone were doing it, then what tests would demonstrate it was being done?
Click to expand...
I don't know there would be a definitive test that could separate the activity from the background noise completely, possibly radiative density of stratospheric layering . . . if it is unexpected . . .
 
13) Be so successful that zero evidence of points 1-12 ever come to light, not once in almost 2 decades...

Good plan, can one obtain a grant for this secret mission impossible? I might need to go parachute jumping or practice zip wiring between high rise buildings to pull this mission off...
 
It really may not be . . . Few dedicated flights . . . Hidden among thousands of persistent trails . . . Perfect cover for a covert operation . . .
Click to expand...

Here is the thing. To effectively inject this sulfur into the atmosphere the planes would have to reach a much higher altitude than commercial aircraft operate in. They would not look like commercial airliners emitting persistent contrails. They would look like special flights reaching unusual altitudes. ANother question, what does a plane releasing sulfur look like? I doubt it looks anything like a persistent contrail.
 
I think Teller's paper says that the most cost efffective place to put the material would be between the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn. High latitudes don't intercept as much sunlight.
 
Des O said:
Here is the thing. To effectively inject this sulfur into the atmosphere the planes would have to reach a much higher altitude than commercial aircraft operate in. They would not look like commercial airliners emitting persistent contrails. They would look like special flights reaching unusual altitudes. ANother question, what does a plane releasing sulfur look like? I doubt it looks anything like a persistent contrail.
Click to expand...
1) there would only be a few flights each day and

2) possibly on polar routes . . .

NOTE: The altitude of the bottom of the stratosphere varies with latitude and with the seasons, occurring between about 8 and 16 km (5 and 10 miles, or 26,000 to 53,000 feet). The bottom of the stratosphere is around 16 km (10 miles or 53,000 feet) above Earth's surface near the equator, around 10 km (6 miles) at mid-latitudes, and around 8 km (5 miles) near the poles. It is slightly lower in winter at mid- and high-latitudes, and slightly higher in the summer. The boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere below is called the tropopause. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/stratosphere.html
-----------
Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (in the lower reaches of the stratosphere).[2] This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere
--------
 
Steve Funk said:
I think Teller's paper says that the most cost efffective place to put the material would be between the tropic of cancer and tropic of capricorn. High latitudes don't intercept as much sunlight.
Click to expand...
Optimal possibly, but the aerosols would more or less equalize over the up to two years they could be aloft . . .
 
your paper says 27 flights a day are needed. Like Steve mentioned, you would be better off emitting in tropics due to the amount of solar radiation received there. You would be closer to 53,000 ft to reach the stratosphere.

Releasing clouds of sulfur particles at the same altitude as other commercial aircraft would be a bad way to keep your operation secret.
 
Des O said:
your paper says 27 flights a day are needed. Like Steve mentioned, you would be better off emitting in tropics due to the amount of solar radiation received there. You would be closer to 53,000 ft to reach the stratosphere.

Releasing clouds of sulfur particles at the same altitude as other commercial aircraft would be a bad way to keep your operation secret.
Click to expand...
Release it at night . . . Stratospheric mixing does occur . . . One weighs and balances, cost, frequency and risk of detection . . . one needs to be only partially effective . . . slowing down warming maybe not stopping it altogether . . .
 
I was more worried about the safety factor. A commercial jet flying right into your cloud of sulfur particles could do some damage.
 
George B said:
Because if you went public . . . the public and scientific debate would prevent you . . .
Click to expand...

According to the information you provided...

Scientific American published the following about the general public. . . .
A full 72 percent of participants in the survey, published in Environmental Research Letters, said they "supported" or "somewhat supported" the study of solar radiation management (SRM).
Click to expand...

Why hide it if 72% are open to the idea?
 
Des O said:
I was more worried about the safety factor. A commercial jet flying right into your cloud of sulfur particles could do some damage.
Click to expand...
Only if there is enough moisture, high enough temperatures, and high enough sulfur concentration . . . for it to be a danger one would have to almost fly in the initially released plume itself, directly behind the release aircraft, at the same altitude . . . not going to happen . . .
 
Trigger Hippie said:
According to the information you provided...



Why hide it if 72% are open to the idea?
Click to expand...

There is a far cry between unofficial acceptance of a concept and being told someone has been doing it for years without your knowledge or approval . . . You are not important enough to inform and we don't want your interference . . . and by the way if we didn't do it you would be dead . . . That is why we did it anyway . . . drop dead!!!
 
George B said:
There is a far cry between unofficial acceptance of a concept and being told someone has been doing it for years without your knowledge or approval . . .
Click to expand...

But that's the point. Why would they do it without anyone's knowledge or approval if 72% are amenable to the idea?
 
Trigger Hippie said:
But that's the point. Why would they do it without anyone's knowledge or approval if 72% are amenable to the idea?
Click to expand...
This is a recent poll . . . not something from the late 1990s . . . attitudes may have changed . . . Simple . . . But once you have done it, kept it secret . . . How do you now tell people ???? . . . By slow leak and publicity . . . by releasing things like the aforementioned poll. . .
 
Let's do some more math. . . I need a flight crew of four times nine . . . 36 total crew members. . . ground crew can be contracted at different airfields. . . .probably need another 30 or so people to load and clean the aircraft. . . .a few here or there to pick up and deliver industrial grade sulfur compounds. . . .the most common of all substances transported in the world. . . .


I would say I need about 100 people or so for the operation and another 50 for security. . . .


Total of 150 people and I can change the rate of climate change. . . .of course I need 1.5 Billion dollars as well. . . .:verycool:
 
To alter the climate . . . (Based on my calculations and the research paper's estimate) . . . WE need to inject from 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . .


Conclusion: Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . .


Data, references and calculations:


metric ton is an unit of weight. gallon is an unit of volumn.
the specific gravity of jet fuel is 0.7 therefore
(1 cubic meter of water equals 1 metric ton. the S.G. of water is 1)
1 /0.7=1.42cubic m=1420liter
1 gallon = 3.7 liter 1420/3.7=383.7 gallons
1 metric ton of jet fuel is 383.7 gallons


As the question is how many barrels per metric ton of 'crude oil', you can use the calculator on the U.S. Energy Information Administrations site:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/
then select 'energy calculators'
Using the crude oil calculator shows 1 metric ton = 7.33 bbl crude oil. Crude oils vary depending on their specific gravity so this is an average for crude oil in the U.S.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Barrels_per_metric_ton_of_crude_oil


Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate. . . .(350,000 bbl/d) / 7.33 bbl = 47,748.98 metric tons of oil per day x .04 = 1,909.95 minimum tons of sulfur compounds produced each day


We Need . . . .(15 x 3) 91 tons each day = 4,095 metric tons for all missions
(So based on my calculations and the research papers estimate of needing 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds to alter the climate . . . one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . . )


According to at least one source sulfur content ranges from (4 - 7% sulfur) by volume in Alberta from all petrochemical sources . . .


Alberta Total bbl/d production (187,000 bbl/d + 100,000 bbl/d + 135,000 bbl/d + 250,000 bbl/d + 110,000 bbl/d + 70,000 bbl/d + 350,000 bbl/d = 1,202,000 bbl/d ) / 7.33 bbl = 163,983.62 metric tons of oil per day x .04 = 6,559.34 metric tons of sulfur compounds


Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)


Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)


Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)


Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen


Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake[disambiguation needed], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen


Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen




NOTE:


CANADIAN DEVELOPMENTS


Preliminary figures show Canadian sulphur production was roughly 8.1 Mt in 2008, an 8% decrease compared to 8.8 Mt in 2007. The decrease was from natural gas processing. Canadian elemental sulphur output in 2008 was 6.9 Mt, a decrease of 6.9% compared to 7.6 Mt in 2007. An additional 1.1 Mt of sulphur equivalent, in the form of sulphuric acid and liquefied sulphur dioxide, was recovered from the smelting of metals.


Canada exported approximately 7.6 Mt in 2008, a decline of 5.2% compared to 8 Mt in 2007. The decline occurred in elemental sulphur with exports of 6.8 Mt in 2008, down 6.4% from 7.3 Mt in 2007. Exports of sulphur in other forms (SOF) amounted to 776 000 t of sulphur equivalent. Exports to offshore markets were 4.7 Mt in 2008, a 10% decline compared to 5.2 Mt in 2007. The majority of the decline was in exports to China with shipments of 1.9 Mt in 2008, compared to 2.7 Mt in 2007. Exports to other offshore destinations increased roughly 10%, partially offsetting the export loss to China. Exports to the United States remained at levels comparable to 2007.


Canadian sulphur production was concentrated in the western provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Other provinces produced limited amounts of sulphur from oil refining and metals smelting.


http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-met...s-yearbook/2008-review/commodity-reviews/3863


HIGHLIGHTS


Sulphur is a nonmetallic element used principally in the manufacture of fertilizers and in the production of chemicals, pulp and paper, and in metallurgical operations.


In Canada, the majority of elemental sulphur is obtained as a by-product of natural gas production. However, sulphur recovered from oil sands production is increasing concurrent with development of the oil sands.


Global production of sulphur in all forms is forecast to increase from 75 Mt in 2008 to 91.4 Mt by 2012, exceeding demand by some 4.1 Mt.


The price of elemental sulphur experienced a turbulent ride in 2008, hitting a high of US$840/t and a low of US$35/t.
 
Trigger Hippie said:
Why are you now characterizing it as "unofficial"? You are the one that thought 72% support for SRM was somehow relevant and worthy of a citation in your OP. Is it not anymore?
Click to expand...
It is evidence of how far the concept of geoengineering has come . . . and is a reflection of the support and acceptance the originators of the concept have gained . . . now roll that back a three to five decades . . . When Teller was involved with atmospheric strategy for the DoD and the Congressional Industrial Military Complex . . .
 
George B said:
Could be someone has already done what I am proposing . . .
Click to expand...

Could be you have done it yuorself and are trying to make it look silly so that no one really looks hard.

Could be that there is a teapot orbiting jupiter.

Could be that the British royal family are all actualy reptiles.

Could be that I am killed by a meteor strike in the next 30 seconds........nope OK ...the next 30 seconds.......... no again...OK, the next 30 seconds......


"Could be..." is not an argument for "is"
 
George B said:
It is evidence of how far the concept of geoengineering has come . . . and is a reflection of the support and acceptance the originators of the concept have gained . . . now roll that back a three to five decades . . . When Teller was involved with atmospheric strategy for the DoD and the Congressional Industrial Military Complex . . .
Click to expand...

And what? finish your thought... what happened 50 years ago with Teller and the DoD?
 
Trigger Hippie said:
Why would attitudes have changed?

BTW, and not to be rude, but are you trying to make a point with all this?
Click to expand...
Hmmmmm . . . The point is in the title of the thread . . . If I were going to create an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program . . . This is what I would do . . . Just demonstrating how plausible it would be . . .
 
George B said:
Just demonstrating how plausible it would be . . .
Click to expand...

No, you have not demonstrated the plausibility of secretly injected millions of tons of sulfates into the atmosphere on a yearly basis since the mid 90's without anyone noticing.

Considering there is no urgent need for a geo engineering program and people seem to be accepting of the idea to begin with, you've also remained completely unconvincing on the need for secrecy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Above Top Secret: How MIL/INTEL classification ACTUALLY works—according to Daniel Ellsberg
Replies
8
Views
828
Rum
R
C
Leaked UFO footage given to "Strange Mysteries"
Replies
36
Views
2K
Ann K
Ann K
Juanne Pili
Debunked: Hurricane Helene, Nexrad, Conspiracy Theories
Replies
17
Views
1K
FatPhil
FatPhil
J
What did I see: Helicopter lights while hovering at night?
Replies
37
Views
1K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
Claim: The CIA Blocked the Transfer of Meta-materials From Crashed UFOs
Replies
6
Views
576
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave

Latest posts

Back
Top