Instances of geoengineering that have had negative consequences.

SeriouslyDebatable

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
Many proposals of geoengineering state that there may be unintended consequences that will not be known until the geoengineering is actually put into practice. Debunkers claim that this is one of the reasons why they have not done any experimentation, however I have found proof that some geoengineering was attempted and the results had unintended consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IkBoFfSbzUc#t=69s

The goal of this thread is to document provable geoengineering attempts, instead of simply debating the notion of whether geoengineering is being considered or not. Because who really cares if people are talking about it. I encourage debate! What the question has ALWAYS been is, are they attempting it? The answer is YES (see link above). Now the new question is, what is the size and scope of the geoengineering experiments that are being attempted?
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Many proposals of geoengineering state that there may be unintended consequences that will not be known until the geoengineering is actually put into practice. Debunkers claim that this is one of the reasons why they have not done any experimentation, however I have found proof that some geoengineering was attempted and the results had unintended consequences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IkBoFfSbzUc#t=69s

The goal of this thread is to document provable geoengineering attempts, instead of simply debating the notion of whether geoengineering is being considered or not. Because who really cares if people are talking about it. I encourage debate! What the question has ALWAYS been is, are they attempting it? The answer is YES (see link above). Now the new question is, what is the size and scope of the geoengineering experiments that are being attempted?
Click to expand...

Again we are faced with the problem of definitions. "Geoengineering" covers a wide variety of topics, depending on who you talk to. When talking about chemtrails, people are generally talking about SRM using some kind of aerosol sprayed from planes.

ALL geoengineering methods that I know of have some negative consequences. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Have you seen the ETC map and list of geoengineering experiments? They have pretty much done your work for you.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/549-Debunked-Geoengineering-Map-by-ETC-Group

They are all things that are going on, or have some research done into, but they stretch the definition rather more than most people (including local cloud seeding). So pick your definition, and go through their list.
 
Last edited:
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Many proposals of geoengineering state that there may be unintended consequences that will not be known until the geoengineering is actually put into practice. Debunkers claim that this is one of the reasons why they have not done any experimentation, however I have found proof that some geoengineering was attempted and the results had unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

Unintended consequences is actually one reason why they would do experimentation. But it would be small scale experimentation, and not deployment. Things like SPICE, or the very small scale experiments suggested by David Keith that they might do in New Mexico at some point:

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-keith-says-guardian-story-is-substantially-fabricated-2012-7

The experiment, which would be conducted from a balloon launched from a NASA facility in New Mexico, would involve putting "micro" amounts of sulfate particles into the air with the goal of learning how they combine with water vapor and affect atmospheric ozone.

The researchers, James G. Anderson, a professor of atmospheric chemistry, and David W. Keith, whose field is applied physics, said the amounts involved would be so small that they would have no effect on climate — locally, regionally or globally. "This is an experiment that is completely nonintrusive," Dr. Anderson said
Content from External Source
 
Oceans are pretty big, and the link I posted deals with dumping things into the ocean. No details are given as to how much iron they dumped in to the ocean but I would speculate that it was somewhat of a large scale in order to produce the noticeable results that they received.
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Oceans are pretty big, and the link I posted deals with dumping things into the ocean. No details are given as to how much iron they dumped in to the ocean but I would speculate that it was somewhat of a large scale in order to produce the noticeable results that they received.
Click to expand...

It was local fertilization. They do it over a relatively small area of a few hundred square miles atmost (a minute fraction of the total surface area of the ocean)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
 
What the question has ALWAYS been is, are they attempting it? The answer is YES
Click to expand...

You're post and link do not establish that "they" are attempting geoengineering.

"They" are conducting experiments regarding the practicality and feasibility of various schemes. That has never been in question. "They" do not appear to be actually trying to do "geoengineering" as that would entail actually trying to alter weather or climate with their experiments and your post and link give no indication that this has occurred or is occurring.

I have found proof that some geoengineering was attempted and the results had unintended consequences
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the iron enrichment expiraments? Those were being done when I was in grad school for marine science over a decade ago. They're still being done. Lots of carbon is scrubbed from the atmosphere by plankton that grows and then dies and sinks and takes carbon with it. It's news to you? Most marine scientists oppose geoengineering by such means because they didn't think that it would be an effective form of carbon sequestration (algae have to sink into the deep ocean and take their carbon with them. If they die and are decomposed by bacteria in the surface water then the carbon they took up goes right back into the atmosphere...) but mostly because deliberately causing increased algae biomass would likely have negative ecological consequences (altered water chemistry, food web interuptions, increased biological oxygen demand in deep water...).

So far none of the experiments has been an attempt at geoengineeing either as there was never any expectation that the experiments would alter the carbon content of the air. The experiments were and are do date just to see if causing algae blooms in the open ocean could be scaled up.
 
Perhaps the word "consequences" was inappropriately used. That implies there may not have been only an undesired test result, but a possible effect. Perhaps they should have specifically said "undesired test results".
 
Mick said:
What's the difference?
Click to expand...

They did not give details about the scope of the study, and "consequences" could be interpreted on a massive scale... where as "tests results" would imply that the testing was smaller in scale. It was just my reaction to how the information was presented that is all. Innocent things can be made to sound worse than they are. Take dihydrogenmonoxide for example.
 
It brings up more questions actually.
That list makes specific references to "See Weather Modification Data for details, please." And there is no Weather Modification Data in that .pdf
 
however I have found proof that some geoengineering was attempted and the results had unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

So what? That's why scientists do small scale experiments and/or develop prototypes first. The unintended result of the specific experiment mentioned in the video was simply the iron fertilization in a specific experiment also stimulated the growth of other organisms, besides plankton, that give off CO2... thereby offsetting the CO2 that would have been sequestered in the plankton. The success, or not, of iron fertilization depends on the kinds of organisms and other nutrients that are present in the area. A more recent experiment in the Southern Ocean was more successful than most previous experiments. Location, location, location.

'Cool pavement' technologies studied to address hot urban surfaces

A possible unintended consequence of lighter colored pavements could be uncomfortable or even dangerous glare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mick West
AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1
6 7 8
Replies
310
Views
14K
Mendel
Mendel
econ41
Would the WTC Twin Towers have collapsed from fire alone, without plane impact?
16 17 18
Replies
683
Views
52K
econ41
econ41
NorCal Dave
Many High-Ranking People Have Confirmed Existence of Secret UFO Programs. Who Has Already Made Similar Claims?
2
Replies
69
Views
10K
FatPhil
FatPhil
J
Need debunking: Japanese researchers claim thousands of paper on vaccine side effects
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
Mendel
Mendel
fizzBuzz
Biologist claims to have studied alien bodies (EBOs - Exo-Biospheric-Organisms)
2 3
Replies
119
Views
16K
JWrightBrain
JWrightBrain

Latest posts

Back
Top