Is geoengineering occuring?

Pete Tar said:
Well if it's undetectable, then there's nothing that can be done about it, so one would have to go with the ethics of innocent until proven otherwise - ie, until rational empirical, not speculative, evidence mounts.
Or do you suggest pre-emptive action in case it's happening, because ' you can't prove it's not'?
There might be invisible monsters giving us cancer, what should we do about it?
I appreciate your concern is genuine and I'm not trying to mock it, but it's hard to see a practical application for it (the suspicion).
Click to expand...

1) Things are sometimes not detected because no one is paying attention . . . no one believes some one would take unilateral action . . . so detection is in essence not impossible but like a magician uses slight of hand to distract an audience the people initiating geoengineering are counting on evidence being easily explained away because geoengineering is rejected as a possible explanation . . .

2) I suggest the scientific community should seriously consider the possibility that this could occur . . . and it could be detected if they were diligent and consider the possibility it could be happening or might happen in the near future . . .

3) IMO the ground work is being laid to either convince the world community geoengineering is essential in the near future or they are buying time and trying to immunize themselves from the potential of massive blowback once their existing actions are discovered . . . Interference could sink their plans . . . the lead time for such an undertaking is significant . . .
 
Last edited:
↑
George B said:
MikeC . . . I have been studying the proposals to accomplish geoengineering via reflective materials injected into the stratosphere for two years and I completely disagree with your conclusions . . . Pinatubo represented probably five times or more the amount of SO2 needed to alter global warming . . .
Click to expand...

MikeC said:
And yet it had a temporary effect only.....
Click to expand...

Yes . . . it was a single event which began and ended . . . primarily gravity and chemical processes cleared the excess particulate . . . without additional eruptions what would you expect?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George B said:
secondarily, any program created to alter warming must be ramped up slowly,
Click to expand...

MickC said:
Why?
Click to expand...

From my research and my understanding of risk analysis . . . any geoengineering efforts must plan for unintended results (significant weather alterations) and unforeseen events such as significant periodic volcanic eruptions . . . so it is prudent to start slowly and measure carefully environmental effects before increasing activity . . .

​
 
Thanks Mick . . . a very interesting quote below . . .


In 2010, Russia joined with Japan in an attempt to water down a resolution to restrict research into geoengineering at a meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In pursuing the climate engineering agenda, a Russian government is likely to face fewer domestic constraints than more developed democracies. Pro-geoengineering analysts writing for a US conservative thinktank have argued that nations with weak environmental lobbies (meaning China and Russia) will be able to deploy "solar radiation management" with muted internal opposition.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/24/why-geoengineering-suits-russias-carbon-agenda

Content from External Source
 
George B said:
↑
Yes . . . it was a single event which began and ended . . . primarily gravity and chemical processes cleared the excess particulate . . . without additional eruptions what would you expect?
Click to expand...

Again you miss the point and try to deflect the discussion - Pinatubo shows that a massive amount of "geoengineering" - an amount that is almost trivially easy to detect - only has a temporary effect.

Ergo any ongoing effort to have a lasting effect will need to involve something of a similar amount of effort for an appropriately longer period of time - SO IT WILL NOT BE UNDETECTABLE.

come on George - that is the basis of your whole ongoing theory - that there could be some sort of geoengineering going on that can't be detected..........and I am pointing out, time after time, that if it is too little to be detected THEN IT IS ALSO TOO LITTLE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeC said:
Again you miss the point and try to deflect the discussion - Pinatubo shows that a massive amount of "geoengineering" - an amount that is almost trivially easy to detect - only has a temporary effect.
Ergo any ongoing effort to have a lasting effect will need to involve something of a similar amount of effort for an appropriately longer period of time - SO IT WILL NOT BE UNDETECTABLE.
Click to expand...
Like CFC's only had a temporary and 'insignificant' effect and well of course 'everyone caught onto that in absolutely no time because it was so obvious.o_O


As George said and as the following underpins and verifies, any Geoengineering would be incremental and monitored for effect. NO NUKES DOWN VOLCANOES UNLESS THERE IS REGIME CHANGE AND OIL CONTRACTS TO COME OUT OF IT

There are no known large-scale climate engineering projects except one conducted outside the scientific mainstream by Russ George. Almost all research has consisted of computer modelling or laboratory tests, and attempts to move to real-world experimentation have proved controversial. Some limited tree planting[12] and cool roof[13] projects are already underway. Ocean iron fertilization has been given small-scale research trials.[14] Field research into sulfur aerosols has also started.[15]

Voices of caution against viewing geoengineered interventions as a simple solution to climate change are largely due to the risks and partially unknown side-effects of the technologies in question. Given the vastly insufficient action on emissions reductions in climate policy to date some have argued though that the risks of such interventions are to be seen in the context of risks of dangerous climate change.[16] As a rule of thumb it would appear that the scale of risks and costs of each climate engineering option appear to be somewhat inverse: The lower the costs, the greater the risks.[16] Some have suggested that the concept of geoengineering the climate presents a moral hazard because it could reduce political and public pressure for emissions reduction.[17] Groups such as ETC Group[18] and individuals such as Raymond Pierrehumbert have called for a moratorium on deployment and out-of-doors testing of geoengineering techniques for climate control.[19][20] In October 2011, a Bipartisan Policy Center panel issued a report urging immediate researching and testing in case "the climate system reaches a 'tipping point' and swift remedial action is required".[21] The National Academy of Sciences is running 21-month project which will study how humans might influence weather patterns, assess dangers and investigate possible national security implications of geoengineering attempts. The project will be funded by the CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA.[22]
Content from External Source
No sweat then if the CIA are involved :eek:

come on George - that is the basis of your whole ongoing theory - that there could be some sort of geoengineering going on that can't be detected..........and I am pointing out, time after time, that if it is too little to be detected THEN IT IS ALSO TOO LITTLE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING!
Click to expand...

I love it. Thing is if they did do it on such a large scale and still denied it and said it was a mystery and perhaps there was 'this or that' accounting for the new ice age... you could use the exact same argument
 
MikeC said:
Again you miss the point and try to deflect the discussion - Pinatubo shows that a massive amount of "geoengineering" - an amount that is almost trivially easy to detect - only has a temporary effect.

Ergo any ongoing effort to have a lasting effect will need to involve something of a similar amount of effort for an appropriately longer period of time - SO IT WILL NOT BE UNDETECTABLE.

come on George - that is the basis of your whole ongoing theory - that there could be some sort of geoengineering going on that can't be detected..........and I am pointing out, time after time, that if it is too little to be detected THEN IT IS ALSO TOO LITTLE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING!
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree . . . the amount of SO2 can be cumulative over weeks, months and even years depending upon the altitude and location injected (Polar vs Equatorial) . . . injection versus fall rates determines the effect of the program . . . it is a complex and delicate dance between natural background, increases in fossil fuel use, abatement programs, volcanic activity, biomass sources and if I am correct rates created by the earth's oceans. It would take a supercomputer plus to accurately sort the whole thing out . . . no one in their right mind would quickly force the climate into a possibly catastrophic direction with massive injection in a few weeks or months that I will admit would be detected . . . the proper way is a slow, longterm, increase in concentration which would take months or years to separate from potential natural and man made sources . . .

Mike . . . It has already happened . . . NOAA admits they didn't realize global warming was halted or slowed . . . and had to think real hard to explain how stratospheric SO2 got increased without their knowing the source . . . they finally decided it was volcanic activity in the tropics . . .

As the caption says, satellite measurements are denoted by the thick black curve. Note the large increase in AOD (higher opacity) over the tropics in the mid-2000s (b) and the large AOD increase over the northern mid-latitudes in the late-2000s (a). While not a perfect fit to the observations, the model run with volcanic eruptions (red curve) does the best job of explaining the origin of the SO2.
http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/201...gely-responsible-for-recent-warming-slowdown/
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:
George B said:
Sorry to disagree . . . the amount of SO2 can be cumulative over weeks, months and even years depending upon the altitude and location injected (Polar vs Equatorial) . . . injection versus fall rates determines the effect of the program
Click to expand...

Really?

I thought it was het amount in the atmosphere that determined the effect of the programme - where do you get the idea that it is the injection rate that matters?

Mike . . . It has already happened . . . NOAA admits they didn't realize global warming was halted or slowed . . . and had to think real hard to explain how stratospheric SO2 got increased without their knowing the source . . . they finally decided it was volcanic activity in the tropics . . .

As the caption says, satellite measurements are denoted by the thick black curve. Note the large increase in AOD (higher opacity) over the tropics in the mid-2000s (b) and the large AOD increase over the northern mid-latitudes in the late-2000s (a). While not a perfect fit to the observations, the model run with volcanic eruptions (red curve) does the best job of explaining the origin of the SO2.
http://weatherdem.wordpress.com/201...gely-responsible-for-recent-warming-slowdown/
Content from External Source
Click to expand...

so in fact "it" (a programme that changes the climate without any atmospheric changes actually being noticed) has not happened at all.

And you consider this to be some sort of evidence for your position?

Mick can you please include an option to ignore moderators, or sack George from this position so I no longer have to dredge through his nonsense?
 
MikeC said:
Really?

I thought it was het amount in the atmosphere that determined the effect of the programme - where do you get the idea that it is the injection rate that matters?



so in fact "it" (a programme that changes the climate without any atmospheric changes actually being noticed) has not happened at all.

And you consider this to be some sort of evidence for your position?

Mick can you please include an option to ignore moderators, or sack George from this position so I no longer have to dredge through his nonsense?
Click to expand...
No need to be insulting Mike. . . so we don't agree . . .
 
George it is worse than we don't agree.

Your continual harping on about this nonsense is tiresome and I want to be able to read this forum without having to bother with you any more.
 
MikeC said:
George it is worse than we don't agree.

Your continual harping on about this nonsense is tiresome and I want to be able to read this forum without having to bother with you any more.
Click to expand...
Just ask Mick to remove me . . . Just stop asking me questions . . . easy
 
Occasionally I forget myself and think you might have something useful to offer - heck I even tried encouraging you by "liking" a post recently....forgetting where it would lead inevitably.

And other people contribute to the thread and some of their posts are actually interesting - cutting down the fluff would maximize the usefulness of those.
 
MikeC said:
Occasionally I forget myself and think you might have something useful to offer - heck I even tried encouraging you by "liking" a post recently....forgetting where it would lead inevitably.

And other people contribute to the thread and some of their posts are actually interesting - cutting down the fluff would maximize the usefulness of those.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I really don't think you get my point at all . . . I am not saying geoengineering is occurring presently . . . I am saying . . . a well thought out sulfur injection program if initiated would be very difficult to detect especially in the first several months or possibly years. Because of the recent and continual political leveraging going on it is much more likely someone, for example, Russia could act unilaterally . . . and if we are not looking closely and accept geoengineering is possible the scientific community could miss it . . .
 
MikeC said:
↑
Sorry to disagree . . . the amount of SO2 can be cumulative over weeks, months and even years depending upon the altitude and location injected (Polar vs Equatorial) . . . injection versus fall rates determines the effect of the program
Really?

I thought it was het amount in the atmosphere that determined the effect of the programme - where do you get the idea that it is the injection rate that matters?
Click to expand...

The difference between the injection rate and fall rate is the relative concentration . . . what is your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George B said:
Sometimes I really don't think you get my point at all . . . I am not saying geoengineering is occurring presently . . . I am saying . . . a well thought out sulfur injection program if initiated would be very difficult to detect especially in the first several months or possibly years. Because of the recent and continual political leveraging going on it is much more likely someone, for example, Russia could act unilaterally . . . and if we are not looking closely and accept geoengineering is possible the scientific community could miss it . . .
Click to expand...

If you don't think it's happening why discuss it?
 
George B said:
The difference between the injection rate and fall rate is the relative concentration . . . what is your point?
Click to expand...

No - the difference between the injection rate and the fall rate is the CHANGE in concentration.

My point is that you are talking nonsense.

Still.
 
George B said:
Sometimes I really don't think you get my point at all . . . I am not saying geoengineering is occurring presently . . . I am saying . . . a well thought out sulfur injection program if initiated would be very difficult to detect especially in the first several months or possibly years. Because of the recent and continual political leveraging going on it is much more likely someone, for example, Russia could act unilaterally . . . and if we are not looking closely and accept geoengineering is possible the scientific community could miss it . . .
Click to expand...

Sigh...I get all of that and always have.

my point is that it would be easily detected before it amounted to any significant change.
 
justanairlinepilot said:
Given the gravity of the situation, many western scientists and governments are already discussing plan B options such as geoengineering.

Where are the facts? What a joke of an article
Click to expand...
I didnt write it but everyday I get many of these stories that seem exactly the same . Its trending more and more ?

Who says its not happening now ? If it isnt then persistent contrails have sure increased here by 100% since Jan 2011 ?
 
MikeC said:
No - the difference between the injection rate and the fall rate is the CHANGE in concentration.

My point is that you are talking nonsense.

Still.
Click to expand...
You are splitting unnecessary hairs . . . what difference does it make?
 
Landru said:
If you don't think it's happening why discuss it?
Click to expand...
Because I think it can happen . . . and I think the scientific community is not alert to the possibility and could miss the opportunity to limit potential damage . . .
 
MikeC said:
Sigh...I get all of that and always have.

my point is that it would be easily detected before it amounted to any significant change.
Click to expand...
That is the question . . . and that is what I was trying to have NASA and/or the Royal Society take a shot at answering . . . however, my point is if someone starts as in for example Russia . . . the longer they are in operation and have sunk their investment the harder it will be to stop them . . .
 
Last edited:
Joe said:
I didnt write it but everyday I get many of these stories that seem exactly the same . Its trending more and more ?

Who says its not happening now ? If it isnt then persistent contrails have sure increased here by 100% since Jan 2011 ?
Click to expand...
Not to start another line of discussion but persistent visible contrails are not likely to form in the stratosphere . . . where the sulfur is proposed to be injected . . . if persistent contrails have anything to do with SO2 mediated geoengineering it would be in the Troposphere . . .
 
MikeC said:
George it is worse than we don't agree.

Your continual harping on about this nonsense is tiresome and I want to be able to read this forum without having to bother with you any more.
Click to expand...
Really? Do you actually have to read every post from every person on this forum who is not on your 'ignore' list?

Are you really incapable of recognising George's posts by his name let alone his avatar?

No wonder you are having trouble understanding his concerns.

But not only are you apparently incapable of discerning the originator of a post... you are incapable of resisting the temptation to READ and RESPOND (in very impolite terms) to said posts ad nauseaum, in the form of personal attacks against the writer in lieu of a coherent response.

I ask myself "why would someone go to that trouble?"

BTW, if you have no interest in this thread, as you state, you can always ignore the thread by clicking the 'ignore this thread' box and that should assist you from inadvertently reading the posts therein and inadvertently responding ... hope that helps. :p
 
Last edited:
Landru said:
If you don't think it's happening why discuss it?
Click to expand...
Oxymoron said:
I ask myself "why would someone go to that trouble?"
Click to expand...
Landru and Oxy, George is using the old "Just Asking Questions" ploy. The questions are thinly disguised to lead us to a conclusion that it is or could be happening.

George, what you have been doing for over a year is transparently obvious to everyone here. Maybe you are trying to suck newcomers in, and I suppose that is legal enough, but don't think you are fooling the general posters here. Every time we show you another reason why you are wrong, you water down your claim a little, but eventually renew it with yet another leading question.
 
MikeC said:
Again you miss the point and try to deflect the discussion - Pinatubo shows that a massive amount of "geoengineering" - an amount that is almost trivially easy to detect - only has a temporary effect.

Ergo any ongoing effort to have a lasting effect will need to involve something of a similar amount of effort for an appropriately longer period of time - SO IT WILL NOT BE UNDETECTABLE.

come on George - that is the basis of your whole ongoing theory - that there could be some sort of geoengineering going on that can't be detected..........and I am pointing out, time after time, that if it is too little to be detected THEN IT IS ALSO TOO LITTLE TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ANYTHING!
Click to expand...

This a very cogent summation, Mike.
 
Jay Reynolds said:
Landru and Oxy, George is using the old "Just Asking Questions" ploy. The questions are thinly disguised to lead us to a conclusion that it is or could be happening.

George, what you have been doing for over a year is transparently obvious to everyone here. Maybe you are trying to suck newcomers in, and I suppose that is legal enough, but don't think you are fooling the general posters here. Every time we show you another reason why you are wrong, you water down your claim a little, but eventually renew it with yet another leading question.
Click to expand...
Is it such a bad thing to 'ask questions'?

If James Lovelock had not asked questions we may well be still Geoengineering inadvertently by releasing CFC's. Now I know you will say Geoengineering must be a deliberate act to qualify but many people think this is a ploy using semantics, (which it appears an inordinate amount of debunking relies on).

But this is a very serious question which not only affects everyone on the planet but those who are yet to arrive and those who are yet too young to appreciate the significance.

Why try to silence people who ask eminently reasonable questions by resorting to personal attacks?

If someone doesn't agree or is uninterested then the appropriate course of action IMO, is to use one's discretionary powers to ignore the thread/subject/argument/poster by not engaging with said.

If Geonengineering is not yet being tried, it is certainly being given serious consideration; is highly likely to be employed in the near future and given the proven secretive nature of governments etc I think it is important to ask these questions.

I am not necessarily against it. I would just like it to be openly discussed and evaluated, particularly by those who have expertise in the field.
 
Last edited:
Jay Reynolds said:
Landru and Oxy, George is using the old "Just Asking Questions" ploy. The questions are thinly disguised to lead us to a conclusion that it is or could be happening.

George, what you have been doing for over a year is transparently obvious to everyone here. Maybe you are trying to suck newcomers in, and I suppose that is legal enough, but don't think you are fooling the general posters here. Every time we show you another reason why you are wrong, you water down your claim a little, but eventually renew it with yet another leading question.
Click to expand...
Jay, do you not think the current public debate and political posturing make it more likely now than before the possibility of a unilateral geoengineering effort?
 
George B said:
Jay, do you not think the current public debate and political posturing make it more likely now than before the possibility of a unilateral geoengineering effort?
Click to expand...
I don't. I see it now as a fight over who will lead or who will set the tone (that is in the context of SRM or spraying). The Russians are not stupid and know anything they do will carry over borders.
 
David Fraser said:
I don't. I see it now as a fight over who will lead or who will set the tone (that is in the context of SRM or spraying). The Russians are not stupid and know anything they do will carry over borders.
Click to expand...
Valid position . . . what if a private third party was involved . . . one that could be used like the combat security groups used by the US in the Gulf and Afghanistan?
 
George B said:
Valid position . . . what if a private third party was involved . . . one that could be used like the combat security groups used by the US in the Gulf and Afghanistan?
Click to expand...


How would that be different? They still have to operate on earth in some country, and that country would have to take responsibility for their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C
NorCal Dave
Claim: The Plasmoid Unification Model (PUM) of Malcolm Bendall provides "free energy".
2
Replies
66
Views
21K
Mendel
Mendel
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools
2
Replies
58
Views
12K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top