If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What probability would you assign it? 10%? 50%? 90%?

Let's say you and I make a bet. I bet that there's no covert geoengineering program currently operating. What are the lowest odds you would take for such a bet?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) I never indicated this video was anything but an example of perceived urgency . . .

2) I never indicated that geoengineering should be done . . . nor have I indicated there are not significant opposition or concerns not to engage in the project . . . Not unlike the detonation of the first hydrogen bombs . . . the fear was an unending chain reaction . . . funny thing they did it anyway . . . Guess what . . . Edward Teller was part of the decision . . . same people who are IMO . . . possibly In charge of the geoengineering decision !!!!


3) With the present state of publicly known research . . . I have indicated that if such a decision were made . . . the best and most likely strategy is stratospheric injection of sulfur compounds . . .


4) I have just presented a set of information which I think makes the process more believable . . . it is an exercise in speculation and probability . . .


http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/AtomicAndHydrogenBombs.cfm


"There was a fear that the detonation of that first bomb would also initiate the destruction of the world. This fear was based on the exceedingly small but finite probability that the explosion of this bomb would initiate an unstoppable chain reaction in the most common element in the world: hydrogen. Their fears were perhaps not totally unfounded, as a rumor persists that the energy liberated by that bomb exceeded the very best theoretical calculations by as much as twenty percent, begging the question 'where did it come from?'
http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/AtomicAndHydrogenBombs.cfm
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What probability would you assign it? 10%? 50%? 90%?

Let's say you and I make a bet. I bet that there's no covert geoengineering program currently operating. What are the lowest odds you would take for such a bet?

How do you expect to prove or disprove its existence . . .?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Wait 20 years.

In that case, I would place a 30% probability that a covert stratospheric aerosol injection program of some type is ongoing or has been ongoing . . . with 100% probability that it has been seriously considered . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Some interesting history about conspiracies and how long they last without absolute resolution . . .

The UnitedStates House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F.Kennedy and MartinLuther King, Jr. and the shooting of Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F.Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of aconspiracy.However, the committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did notinclude the governments of the Soviet Union orCuba.It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by anyorganized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule outindividual members of any of those groups acting together.
The House SelectCommittee on Assassinations suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, andthen issuing a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 yearsunder Congressional rules.[1]In 1992, Congress passed legislationto collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, andcreated theAssassinationRecords Review Board to further that goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinat ions
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some interesting history about conspiracies and how long they last without absolute resolution . . .

The UnitedStates House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F.Kennedy and MartinLuther King, Jr. and the shooting of Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F.Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of aconspiracy.However, the committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did notinclude the governments of the Soviet Union orCuba.It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by anyorganized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule outindividual members of any of those groups acting together.
The House SelectCommittee on Assassinations suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, andthen issuing a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 yearsunder Congressional rules.[1]In 1992, Congress passed legislationto collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, andcreated theAssassinationRecords Review Board to further that goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinat ions

That just means there was at least one other person involved. What conspiracies on the scale you are suggesting (if there even are any) have lasted?
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Not my calculations . . . was research from a geoengineering paper . . .


fly a few aircraft at about $1.25 Billion 2008 dollars per year ( according to . . .lines 138 - lines 143 and graph on line 528 inhttp://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdfaccording 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).

OK, I see the reference, but they are counting the fuel consumed by the KC10 as part of the payload. The actual cargo payload is 85 tons.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That just means there was at least one other person involved. What conspiracies on the scale you are suggesting (if there even are any) have lasted?


The Italian American Mafia began at the time when many Italians immigrated to the United States and made it their home in the 1800s. The American branch of the mafia is believed to have begun in 1893 when Don Vito Cascio Ferro fled to New York after the murder of banker Emanuele Notarbartolo, in Sicily..The Italian mafia in the United States is sometimes referred to as La Cosa Nostra which is Italian for "Our thing". They continues to dominate organized crime in the United States. It uses this status to maintain control over much of Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Providence, New Jersey and New York City's organized criminal activity.
http://www.fanabala.com/Brief_Mafia_History.html
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
Pointing out that hardware is/could be able to be modified to "spray" anything into the air, globally, is a FAR cry from proving that its actually happening.

All I see from George is a bunch of a game I used to play a lot as a kid..

It was called "what if".

What if we had a billion dollars...

What if we had a horse....

You get the idea...

Now George is asking "what if"...

It's nothing more than fantasy.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Exactly - aircraft equipment for "spraying stuff" was patented at least as far ago as the 1920's - so people have been capable of thinking of it for at least that long.

"Spraying stuff" from aircraft is, technically speaking, quite simple and trivial to do (if you don't count getting approval for the design changes required!!)

And pointing out hte obvious that it CAN be done comes with a big "Yeah...and??"
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Exactly - aircraft equipment for "spraying stuff" was patented at least as far ago as the 1920's - so people have been capable of thinking of it for at least that long.

"Spraying stuff" from aircraft is, technically speaking, quite simple and trivial to do (if you don't count getting approval for the design changes required!!)

And pointing out hte obvious that it CAN be done comes with a big "Yeah...and??"

O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Seems the UN recognized in the 1970s the capability of technology to accomplish weather modification and the fear people would use it as a weapon. . . and found it necessary to ratify this treaty because of that fear . . .

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

1977 UN Environmental Modification Convention
Main article: Environmental Modification Convention
Weather control, particularly hostile weather warfare, was addressed by the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention[19] on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" was adopted. The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.[20]"
 

MikeC

Closed Account
O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

I do not know that anything like that exists.

Indeed I am confused by the question - why do you think I would know of somethign along those lines??:confused:

And yes the UN convention banning weather modification as a weapon of war is well known to many - if not to you. Did you mean to make some point by posting it??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I do not know that anything like that exists.

Indeed I am confused by the question - why do you think I would know of somethign along those lines??:confused:

And yes the UN convention banning weather modification as a weapon of war is well known to many - if not to you. Did you mean to make some point by posting it??
That it has long been recognized by the world that large scale environmental manipulation was not only technically possible but was going to be attempted . . . and without notification or approval by the people of the world . . . so why is it so difficult to suspect geoengineering efforts have not already been attempted . . . ???
 

MikeC

Closed Account
That it has long been recognized by the world that large scale environmental manipulation was not only technically possible but was going to be attempted . . . and without notification or approval by the people of the world . . .

It says nothing of the sort. It says that "the people of the world" (via the UN) took notice of what could be done, what might possibly be done, and decided it would be better if it were not done - at least in war time. It is completely agnostic (says nothing about) what was "going to be attempted", nor whether that was going to be notified or approved by anyone in particular.

I have no problem with people suspecting they have occurred.

But suspicion that they might have occurred is not the same as knowing they have occurred.

Suspicion should be investigated - and having been investigated and no credible evidence found, it should be set aside.

That is not to say that you should not be suspicious that someone MAY do it at some time - that is another question entirely.

However it is irrational to suspect something, investigate it, find no evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence proves that something is happening - which is pretty much what het whole geo-engineering & chemtrail argument does.

And you did not address my question about why you think I would think that

O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???
exists in the first place? What are you trying to discover, or what point are you trying to make???
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It says nothing of the sort. It says that "the people of the world" (via the UN) took notice of what could be done, what might possibly be done, and decided it would be better if it were not done - at least in war time. It is completely agnostic (says nothing about) what was "going to be attempted", nor whether that was going to be notified or approved by anyone in particular.

I have no problem with people suspecting they have occurred.

But suspicion that they might have occurred is not the same as knowing they have occurred.

Suspicion should be investigated - and having been investigated and no credible evidence found, it should be set aside.

That is not to say that you should not be suspicious that someone MAY do it at some time - that is another question entirely.

However it is irrational to suspect something, investigate it, find no evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence proves that something is happening - which is pretty much what het whole geo-engineering & chemtrail argument does.

And you did not address my question about why you think I would think that

exists in the first place? What are you trying to discover, or what point are you trying to make???
Are you saying you don't think global warming exists or at least it doesn't need mitigation???
 

MikeC

Closed Account
huh?? :confused:

Could you please stick to and explain your own original question - which was something about what can be done in short order to combat global warming - your exact words were:

O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

Like I said - I know of nothing that fits your criteria - why do you think I would know something about it??
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
huh?? :confused:

Could you please stick to and explain your own original question - which was something about what can be done in short order to combat global warming - your exact words were:



Like I said - I know of nothing that fits your criteria - why do you think I would know something about it??

You were making the point that spraying from aircraft was no big deal and past history of such was no argument for the existence of an injection program . . . my rhetorical question was meant to convey . . . so what, history be pitched . . . can you show me right now . . . any method other than stratospheric injection of sulfur that would be as effective on mitigating warming or more easily accomplished ????? And you can't . . . except causing a significant volcanic eruption . . .
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
O.K. you tell me what else can be done in short order . . . in weeks or months to mitigate global warming . . . ? Something that the infrastructure is almost completely there and ready . . . ???

Well spraying something that acts exactly like water vapor at the altitude of commercial jet aviation wouldn't be among the options.

Considering that I only ever see the trails and clouds that chemtrail believers like to call "geoengineering" occurring in the troposphere when the weather dictates that those formations should occur certainly seems to indicate that "global warming mitigation" isn't occurring or being attempted at this point.

Do you have any evidence that aircraft capable of delivering Mt. Pinatubo type quantities atmospheric albedo increasing compounds to the stratosphere actually exist?

I don't see that the infrastructure to mimic a Mt. Pinatubo is "almost completely there and ready".
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Well spraying something that acts exactly like water vapor at the altitude of commercial jet aviation wouldn't be among the options.

Considering that I only ever see the trails and clouds that chemtrail believers like to call "geoengineering" occurring in the troposphere when the weather dictates that those formations should occur certainly seems to indicate that "global warming mitigation" isn't occurring or being attempted at this point.

Do you have any evidence that aircraft capable of delivering Mt. Pinatubo type quantities atmospheric albedo increasing compounds to the stratosphere actually exist?

I don't see that the infrastructure to mimic a Mt. Pinatubo is "almost completely there and ready".


You obviously didn't read the first page. . .


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. . . .
----------


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
--------
 

MikeC

Closed Account
You were making the point that spraying from aircraft was no big deal and past history of such was no argument for the existence of an injection program . . .

Yes indeed....

my rhetorical question was meant to convey . . . so what, history be pitched . . . can you show me right now . . . any method other than stratospheric injection of sulfur that would be as effective on mitigating warming or more easily accomplished ????? And you can't . . . except causing a significant volcanic eruption . . .

Indeed ...and so what? That also is not evidence that it is being done right now.
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
It looks to me like George believes that just because something is possible, it's also probable. I'm sorry, I just can't make that leap.

Just because people have been discussing global warming mitigation through sulphur aerosol injection, doesn't mean "they" have been doing it!

There is just no evidence that it's happening.

Just as there is no evidence that a single trail in the sky is anything more than a contrail. Or that a round object in digital photography is anything more than dust...

George WANTS to believe in this. He has too much invested in this to admit that he could possibly be mistaken.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes indeed....



Indeed ...and so what? That also is not evidence that it is being done right now.

O.K.

1) We now have the most likely method to mitigate climate change, if a decision were made sometime in the past to act . . .
2) We know resources for the injection program are and were available . . .
3) We know there are many groups rightly or wrongly calling for mitigation . . . they were admittedly more effective in the past than now for several reasons . . .
4) We have identified individuals and groups capable of such operations . .
5) We have identified their willingness to act, even recklessly, if they think they should for the benefit or demise of the entire globe and without regard to opposition . . .
6) So how do we prove they have done so?? . . . I submit . . . We can't . . . we can only speculate . . . assign probabilities and watch for indirect evidence, policy, or an outright confession . . .
 

Noble1965

New Member
Banned
O.K.


7) I submit . . . We can't . . . we can only speculate . . . assign probabilities and watch for indirect evidence, policy, or an outright confession . . .

No, YOU can speculate...and assume....and believe.

The rest of us can point out that it's what you are doing. There seems to be no reason to "watch" for anything to do with this hoax. I'll continue to point out the jumping to conclusions and paranoid speculation while I enjoy my life...


You could be right...but, so far, I see no evidence.

When I do, I'll admit you were correct all along...not because you had enough evidence to support your beliefs, just because you had jumped to conclusions...and just happened to be correct.

So far, there is no where near enough compelling evidence to make statements of fact concerning this subject. It's fantasy.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Note background since 1960's.
Note effects of 20 million tons by Pinatubo.
Note transmission in 1998(chemtrails hoax started).
Note transmission 12 years later.
Note no decrease in transmission.
Note return to background since 1960's
This disproves all claims of Solar Radiation Geoengineering.
It ain't happening.
Capiche?

see the little squiggles in the inset, which have occurred since, forever....
THAT is "persistent variable"

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/44...e-there-is-an-Aerosol-Injection-Program/page7
------

1) Where is the trend from all that coal being burned in China. . . ????

2) Seems it takes 20 million Tons (20 Tg) to show a dramatic trend on the graph. . . ????

3) Where is the upward trend for all the success in North America and Europe on mitigation of ground source aerosols. . . ???? . . . could be something is unaccounted for . . . ?????

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Noble1965

New Member
Banned

Note background since 1960's.
Note effects of 20 million tons by Pinatubo.
Note transmission in 1998(chemtrails hoax started).
Note transmission 12 years later.
Note no decrease in transmission.
Note return to background since 1960's
This disproves all claims of Solar Radiation Geoengineering.
It ain't happening.
Capiche?

see the little squiggles in the inset, which have occurred since, forever....
THAT is "persistent variable"

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/44...e-there-is-an-Aerosol-Injection-Program/page7
------

1) Where is the trend from all that coal being burned in China. . . ????

2) Seems it takes 20 million Tons (20 Tg) to show a dramatic trend on the graph. . . ????

3) Where is the upward trend for all the success in North America and Europe on mitigation of ground source aerosols. . . ???? . . . could be something is unaccounted for . . . ?????



Yup, could be...there could be a simple and benign explanation...

There could be aliens on Mars...there could be an invisible unicorn in my garage....

So?

Still seems like paranoid speculation made by a layman to me...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

Note background since 1960's.
Note effects of 20 million tons by Pinatubo.
Note transmission in 1998(chemtrails hoax started).
Note transmission 12 years later.
Note no decrease in transmission.
Note return to background since 1960's
This disproves all claims of Solar Radiation Geoengineering.
It ain't happening.
Capiche?

see the little squiggles in the inset, which have occurred since, forever....
THAT is "persistent variable"

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/44...e-there-is-an-Aerosol-Injection-Program/page7
------

1) Where is the trend from all that coal being burned in China. . . ????

2) Seems it takes 20 million Tons (20 Tg) to show a dramatic trend on the graph. . . ????

3) Where is the upward trend for all the success in North America and Europe on mitigation of ground source aerosols. . . ???? . . . could be something is unaccounted for . . . ?????


The following research clearly indicates that the injection of one million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere by Mount St Helen's didn't register on your trend line above . . . it took at least eight million tons from El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 to register a significant dip . . . it is highly unlikely that the 1 to 1.5 Tg proposed by geoengineering to mitigate warming would register significantly as well . . . so the graph above is not proof an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program does not exist as it has been used to claim . . .


"The eruption of El Chichon, Mexico, in 1982 conclusively demonstrated this idea was correct. The explosive eruption injected at least 8 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere, and it was followed by a measureable cooling of parts of the Earth's surface and a warming of the upper atmosphere. A similar-sized eruption at Mount St. Helens in 1980, however, injected only about 1 Mt of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere. The eruption of Mount St. Helens injected much less sulfur into the atmosphere--it did not result in a noticeable cooling of the Earth's surface. The newly launched TOMS satellite (in 1978) made it possible to measure these differences in the eruption clouds. Such direct measurements of the eruption clouds combined with surface temperatures make it possible to study the corrleation between volcanic sulfur aerosols (instead of ash) and temporary changes in the world's climate after some volcanic eruptions."
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/s02aerosols.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Des O

New Member
Here is a flaw in your supposed possible plan. The effects of these volcanic eruptions are only temporary. So in order to permanently cool the planet you would need to continuously introduce aerosols into the stratosphere. Not just a one time yearly event like you are indicating.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is a flaw in your supposed possible plan. The effects of these volcanic eruptions are only temporary. So in order to permanently cool the planet you would need to continuously introduce aerosols into the stratosphere. Not just a one time yearly event like you are indicating.
Yes, you are correct . . . one would have to constantly monitor the natural and man made sulfur injections to know how much aerosol to inject on a continual basis through the covert program . . . one never knows how much sulfur an unexpected volcano might produce . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is a flaw in your supposed possible plan. The effects of these volcanic eruptions are only temporary. So in order to permanently cool the planet you would need to continuously introduce aerosols into the stratosphere. Not just a one time yearly event like you are indicating.
By-the-way, the plan calls for 290 plus days of injection each year . . . continually . . .
 

Des O

New Member
I think all we are proving here is how hard it is to predict the effects of geo-engineering. Just like every study about it says...we need more information before we do it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Then your sulfur quantities you quoted earlier have just multiplied by infinity!!!
No the fall rate of the sulfur compound aerosols is between 1 to 2 years depending on initial particulate size and altitude injected into the stratosphere . . . after the desired concentration was reached within the first 12-24 months . . . one would just replace the aerosol lost to gravity, coagulation, precipitation (wet fall), dry fall, etc . . .
 

Spongebob

Active Member
By-the-way, the plan calls for 290 plus days of injection each year . . . continually . . .

That`s a lot of flights. What if the runway is iced up/snowed in?

Does this significantly alter the program?

Will " they " have to put on extra flights once the runway is clear again? If so how many flights - and surely there might be a small gap which they can`t plug and this would throw a spanner in the works?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That`s a lot of flights. What if the runway is iced up/snowed in?

Does this significantly alter the program?

Will " they " have to put on extra flights once the runway is clear again? If so how many flights - and surely there might be a small gap which they can`t plug and this would throw a spanner in the works?

Not at all . . . cumulative effect is the desire . . . plan has allowed for over 100 down days each year according to the research . . .


  1. 221 We postulate a schedule of three flights per day, 250 days per year, for each plane. If
  2. 222 each flight were 2 hours, this would be 1500 hours per year. As a rough estimate, we take $5
  3. 223 million per 300 hours times 5, or $25 million per year in operational costs per airplane. If we use
  4. 224 the same estimates for the KC-10 and the F-15C, we can get an upper bound on the annual costs
  5. 225 for using these airplanes for geoengineering, as we would expect the KC-10 to be cheaper, as it
  6. 226 is newer than the KC-135, and the F-15C to be cheaper, just because it is smaller and would
  7. 227 require less fuel and fewer pilots.




THE BENEFITS, RISKS, AND COSTS OF STRATOSPHERIC GEOENGINEERING
Alan Robock, Allison Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Submitted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters
May, 2009


http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
 

Spongebob

Active Member
No the fall rate of the sulfur compound aerosols is between 1 to 2 years depending on initial particulate size and altitude injected into the stratosphere . . . after the desired concentration was reached within the first 12-24 months . . . one would just replace the aerosol lost to gravity, coagulation, precipitation (wet fall), dry fall, etc . . .

In the UK this year we have had a lot of rain (or have we?) either way - let`s say we have, if it rains more then will "they" have to put on extra flights to compensate?

Also - the optimal pH of your vegetable garden should measure about 6.5, just below neutral. If you have an alkaline soil (soil where the pH measures above 7) one may want to consider amending the soil to lower the pH.

Applying sulfur is one way gardeners modify soil conditions to promote optimal growth of their vegetable plants.

So - one way to expose this evil plan (if indeed it is happening) would be to get gardeners to fill in questionnaires to find out if they are needing to apply sulphur to keep the sprouts plump, or the marrows fat, or their spuds massive...

Then we`ve got em!! (if they haven`t got alkaline soil) ;)



 
Top