Well when you inject approximately five times the amount necessary to halt warming one could see almost anything in the sky . . . 20 million Tons of SO2 injected when anywhere from 2-5 million tons per year was thought to be necessary. . . .
In July 2012 Paul Boothe, former deputy minister at Environment Canada, called a meeting to discuss methods of dealing with worst-case climate change scenarios.
According to an internal memorandum from Natural Resources Canada released through Access to Information legislation, Environment Canada presented "a summary of current interest, science and governance issues regarding geoengineering to address climate change" in the meeting. Top level bureaucrats were personally invited to attend the confidential meeting. Which of the invitees actually attended is less clear.
The Environment Canada presentation defines geo-engineering as "the deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system in order to moderate global warming."
http://www.desmog.ca/2013/06/24/env...rs-geo-engineering-climate-fix-secret-meeting
They are getting desperate because the Global warming hoax has been exposed . 16 years of cooling Im surprised they don't admit they been geoengineering causing it to cool the planet despite the rise in that toxic poisonous gas CO2 . They need to start something before it gets any cooler exposing them even more . Hopefully they'll all be out of a job soon . Then we can open the Keystone Pipeline bring down the cost of energy and stimulate our economy the old fashion way without government involvement
Keith and his collaborators are pushing fellow researchers to sign an agreement that would “function like a moratorium” on deploying solar engineering. That, Keith believes, could calm fears that some are rushing ahead on the technology—worries that he concedes are “not ungrounded,” since there are, in fact, no international laws or regulations barring anyone from implementing geoengineering schemes. By signing a moratorium, he hopes, scientists could “help free up research” on the risks and efficacy of SRM.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
According to David Keith Mt Pinatubo was over 20 to 80 times more injected material than is really needed . . .
According to Keith’s calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year. Once under way, the injection of sulfuric acid would proceed continuously. By 2040, 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of it each year, at an annual cost of $700 million, would be required to compensate for the increased warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide. By 2070, he estimates, the program would need to be injecting a bit more than a million tons per year using a fleet of a hundred aircraft.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
Actually, you are wrong in several respects, George. Consider the Mauna Loa observations of atmospheric transmission caused by a 7 Mt injection vs a 20 Mt injection:
Jay, every example you used above are massive static well known point sources . . . we are talking about minuscule, disseminated, slow build up of SO2 over months . . . there is no real comparison . . . sorry IMO your debunking doesn't fly . . . remember NOAA had difficulty assigning increased SO2 in the Stratosphere from the multiple volcanoes in the Tropics . . .Actually, you are wrong in several respects, George. Consider the Mauna Loa observations of atmospheric transmission caused by a 7 Mt injection vs a 20 Mt injection:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/EGECVolcanicEruptions.pdf
Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Volcanic Eruptions by Alan Robock
Volume 1, The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change,
pp 738–744 (ISBN 0-471-97796-9)
So, from the ground, the effect of even a 7 megaton eruption is quite clearly evident.
====================================================================
Another way that injections of SO2 are continually monitored and would be observed is by satellite. The TOMS satellite continually scans the earth looking for SO2.
Here is what Pinatubo looked like:
Again, you can clearly see the result of a 20 Mt injection.
======================================================
Now, let's compare how El Chicon and Pinatubo showed up on TOMS:
Again, even a 7 Mt injection is clearly visible. Remember, this is using 30 year old technology.
============================================
So, now you are going to say that under your covert geoengineering scenario, the releases would necessarily be much smaller and hence undetectable.
Let's look at how a much smaller release of SO2 looks, using modern technology.
Here is the ruption of Mt Merapi, which released 1% of Pinatubo, or 200,000 tons:
Here is the European MACC image for today, note that a release of SO2 from Mt. Etna in Italy is clearly visible in red:
Also, note the plume from Beijing!
=======================================
Again, confirmable by a completely different NASA satellite which focuses in on the area:
In the image above, the mass being released by Etna is less than 0.1 kiloton!
George you r claim that geoengineering could be practiced covertly simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I am no aerosol scientist, but was able to find out that even moderate releases of SO2 are easily monitored by the common man in detail spatially, temporally and quantitatively. Your speculation that geoengineering could be done covertly is debunked.
Nope, the Mount Etna example I show of 10 tons is easily detectable. You cited as an example that 25,000 tons would be released.
It was not hidden (volcanoes) from NOAA . . . agreed . . . it is connecting these sources to the outcome . . . were these point sources the proximate cause of the unexpected increase in SO2 during the decade in question? That is a different question? And if there is no static source or if someone mimics such a natural source or use the sources as cover for their activity. . . what then?Actually, George, two were in the tropics, and two quite far north. It wasn't any problem detecting these, though. Here are the TOMS SO2 images for each of those four eruptions. there was no problem at all detecting these, just as there is no problem seeing Mt. Etna or Beijing.
You simply cannot hide Sulfur from TOMS, Aura, Calipso, and many other satellites, George.
I never said there has not been concern in the past . . . seems the same concerns exist even today and just as valid . . . and every year the technology and possible intervention strategies get more sophisticated . . . thanks for your historical review . . .
You contend a release of 10 ton could be detected . . . I don't think a Gulf Stream could inject that much SO2. . . . and it could be released over thousands of miles . . .Again, confirmable by a completely different NASA satellite which focuses in on the area:
In the image above, the mass being released by Etna is less than 0.1 kiloton!
George your claim that geoengineering could be practiced covertly simply doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I am no aerosol scientist, but was able to find out that even moderate releases of SO2 are easily monitored by the common man in detail spatially, temporally and quantitatively. The release of SO2 above normal especially in the stratosphere with no natural cause would attract attention, there would be concomitant changes in aerosol optical density, atmospheric transmission and ozone. These would be detectable both on the ground at numerous stations as well as multiple satellites. It simply could not be hidden.
Your speculation that geoengineering could be done covertly is debunked.
Here is the plan. Customize several Gulfstream business jets with military engines and with equipment to produce and disperse fine droplets of sulfuric acid. Fly the jets up around 20 kilometers—significantly higher than the cruising altitude for a commercial jetliner but still well within their range. At that altitude in the tropics, the aircraft are in the lower stratosphere. The planes spray the sulfuric acid, carefully controlling the rate of its release. The sulfur combines with water vapor to form sulfate aerosols, fine particles less than a micrometer in diameter. These get swept upward by natural wind patterns and are dispersed over the globe, including the poles. Once spread across the stratosphere, the aerosols will reflect about 1 percent of the sunlight hitting Earth back into space. Increasing what scientists call the planet’s albedo, or reflective power, will partially offset the warming effects caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
Ah, so they are going to hide geoengineering ..................by flying Gulfstream jets through............ volcanic plumes.........better.........rethink that......
Thousands of miles, eh..........increase flight times/long run back to base.......increase wear/tear/maintenance.........decreased time for loading......George....... what release rate and payload are you claiming............. would be used for your speculated covert geoengineering plan????????? If you haven't come up with a figure, you haven't done any sound thinking on this matter.......... I am trying to pin you down.......... but you are being slippery to dodge away........
I really don't think that flying through volcanic ash would be necessary . . . flying above it or near it maybe . . . the objective would be to confuse the picture . . . ramp up your program before someone stops your efforts from becoming fully operational . . .
To derive such numbers would require substantial speculation regarding David Keith's proposal in the following article . . . I will attempt to find his original proposal but it is not cited in this article . . . So far every reference to this information refers back to the article below . . . Since he as stated 11 aircraft . . . for 25,000 tons I would speculate 3 tons injected per flight, two flights each day over 365 days of operation . . . a few more aircraft or more injected would change the mix or days of operation . . .
According to Keith’s calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year. Once under way, the injection of sulfuric acid would proceed continuously. By 2040, 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of it each year, at an annual cost of $700 million, would be required to compensate for the increased warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide. By 2070, he estimates, the program would need to be injecting a bit more than a million tons per year using a fleet of a hundred aircraft.
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/
CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE
by redstatehatemonitor Dec 12, 2007 4:21pm PST
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE
This Florida based Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA crash landed on September 24, 2007 after it ran out of fuel over Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula it had a cargo of several tons of Cocaine on board now documents have turned up on both sides of the Atlantic that link thisCocaine Smuggling Gulfstream II jet aircraft # N987SA that crashed in Mexico to the CIA who used it on at least 3 rendition flights from Europe and the USA to Guantanamo's infamous torture chambers between 2003 to 2005.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/420107/-CIA-Torture-Jet-wrecks-with-4-Tons-of-COCAINE
General characteristics
Performance
- Crew: 2 pilots
- Capacity: 11–18 passengers
- Payload: 6,500 lb (2,950 kg)
- Length: 99 ft 9 in (30.41 m)
- Wingspan: 99 ft 7 in (30.36 m)
- Height: 25 ft 4 in (7.72 m)
- Wing area: 1,283 ft² (119.2 m²)
- Aspect ratio: 7.7
- Max. takeoff weight: 99,600 lb (45,200 kg)
- Powerplant: 2 × Rolls-Royce DeutschlandBR725 turbofan, 16,100 lbf (71.6 kN) each
- Maximum landing weight: 83,500 lb (37,876 kg)
- Wing sweep: 36 degrees
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulfstream_G650
- Maximum speed: Mach 0.925 (530 kn, 610 mph, 982 km/h)
- Cruise speed: Long range cruise: Mach 0.85 (488 kn, 562 mph, 904 km/h) Fast cruise: Mach 0.90 (516 kn, 595 mph, 956 km/h)
- Range: Long range cruise: 7,000 nautical miles (8,050 mi, 12,960 km)Fast cruise: 6,000 nmi (6,906 mi, 11,112 km)
- Service ceiling: 51,000 ft (15,500 m)
- Wing loading: 77.7 lb/ft² (3.72 kPa)
Sure even if Keith was off by a factor of 50% you use 22 aircraft instead of 11 . . . and Jay these are not my numbers . . . they are alleged to be from one of the most well known and expert advocates of geoengineering on the planet (David Keith). . . maybe you should take your questions directly to him . . . http://keith.seas.harvard.edu
He has probably never thought about conducting covert operations . . . he is just concerned someone might thumb their nose at the scientific community . . .
Lol!!!or......... you can ask me......... for a quote for my services........groundwork putting down numbers.......... for your project specifications.......will come in @ about $125/hour.......but then I will debunk it........for free
________________________________
Dr Keith,
You have made it clear that you fear the possibility of unilateral action by nations or others to possibly initiate SO2 stratospheric injection . . .
1) In your opinion, could someone engage in such an injection program and not be detected?
2) And if discovered could they be stopped?
Thank you for your time . . .
George B, Colonel USAF Retired
Sent from my iPhone
Dr Minnis, NASA
Dr David Keith (http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/), made it clear that he fears the possibility of unilateral action by nations or others to possibly initiate SO2 stratospheric injection . . .
1) In your opinion, could someone engage in such an injection program and not be detected?
2) And if discovered could they be stopped?
Thank you for your time . . .
George B, Colonel USAF Retired
No . . . I now have a response from my inquiry . . . if you would like to see the response let me know. . . .
Talking about "rogue", there was this story:
See link above for full story.When geoengineering goes rogue
The Guardian has a fascinating story today about Russ George, a California businessman who has been seeding the Pacific Ocean with iron in order to trigger a 3,800-square-mile plankton bloom. The idea has some promise as a geoengineering scheme to mitigate global warming—in theory, the plankton can suck carbon-dioxide out of the air and bury it down in the deep ocean when they die.
The only problem? George appears to be carrying out this scheme on his own, apparently without permission:
..
International legal experts say George's project has contravened the UN's convention on biological diversity (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea, which both prohibit for-profit ocean fertilization activities.
..
Yes, this I think is an example of the inability of the world community to suppress basically one person and small group from unilateral action even when they were very public about their actions . . . what if someone or some nation chose to be covert about what they did ?
When the information is public will be soon enough for me.
Not before he had released a substantial amount of iron . . .
Your choice . . .
