Sulphur in jetfuel as undetectable geoengineering

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
[Thread extracted from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1488-FB-Airline-Pilots-Who-Believe-that-Chemtrails-are-Real and retitled by HM]

Really what you are saying is that if someone spiked the fuel and there was no noticeable difference then nobody would notice it. That's a GeorgeB argument. It's meaningless.
1) Ouch!! Mick . . . that stung . . ;). sulfur can be increased in jet fuel up to 3,000 ppm from the present average of 300-500 ppm without almost anyone noticing . . . Why? . . . up to 3,000 ppm is allowed by all Militaries, Commercial and national standards that I am aware of . . . testing of sulfur is done only to assure the fuels meet standards . . . and anything below 3,000 ppm would . . .
2) hypothetically, if spiking jet fuel with sulfur was a strategy to slow global warming it is not likely it would work unless all the fuels high in sulfur were burned in the Stratosphere . . . and not burned in the Troposphere . . .

Research done up to this time suggest that adding sulfur to jet fuel (if I am not mistaken) could reduce persistent contrails . . . it is very confusing . . . ultra low sulfur might also reduce the incidence of persistent contrails . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I was under the impression that people like David Keith have agreed Sulphur dispertion would not work for geoengineering. I will link later but it is in the UK report in another thread.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) Ouch!! Mick . . . that stung . . ;). sulfur can be increased in jet fuel up to 3,000 ppm from the present average of 300-500 ppm without almost anyone noticing . . . Why? . . . up to 3,000 ppm is allowed by all Militaries, Commercial and national standards that I am aware of . . . testing of sulfur is done only to assure the fuels meet standards . . . and anything below 3,000 ppm would . . .
2) hypothetically, if spiking jet fuel with sulfur was a strategy to slow global warming it is not likely it would work unless all the fuels high in sulfur were burned in the Stratosphere . . . and not burned in the Troposphere . . .

Research done up to this time suggest that adding sulfur to jet fuel (if I am not mistaken) could reduce persistent contrails . . . it is very confusing . . . ultra low sulfur might also reduce the incidence of persistent contrails . . . . .




To make it even more complex . . . the sulfur content of jet fuel presently is too low to help increase sulfur injected into the stratosphere which would cool the planet but is also too high in sulfur content when injected into the troposphere to reduce the number and persistence of contrails and contrail induced cirrus clouds . . . the exact opposite strategy that should be followed in both cases . . .


http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20100122519/description.html


US Patent Application 20100122519 - ULTRA-LOW SULFUR FUEL AND METHOD FOR REDUCED CONTRAIL FORMATION


"0011]The gas turbine engine 20 utilizes an ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 to manage contrail formation from the gas turbine engine 20 while flying through contrail-forming conditions 32. Typical aviation fuels include 30-3000 parts per million of sulfur. However, the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 of the disclosed example includes a concentration of sulfur that is less than about one part per million to limit an amount of sulfur byproduct produced in the exhaust 28. In further examples, the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 may have a concentration of sulfur that is less than 300 parts per billion or concentration that is below detectable limits (i.e., nominally zero). The sulfur byproducts (e.g., including SO3) may be in the form of particles, compounds, or other exhaust matter emitted in the exhaust 28.


[0012]Sulfur byproducts may act as nucleation sites for condensation of water under contrail-forming conditions. For instance, sulfur byproducts are highly hydroscopic compared to carbon or other particles in an exhaust. The sulfur byproducts, including any sulfur byproduct associated with emitted soot particles, attract water vapor molecules more readily than other types of particles in the exhaust. The sulfur byproduct may rapidly accumulate water and form droplets that lead to contrails. The amount of sulfur byproduct in the exhaust 28 is limited by utilizing the ultra-low sulfur fuel 30. The ultra-low sulfur fuel 30 thereby limits or eliminates contrail formation because there is limited sulfur byproduct in the exhaust 28 to support nucleation and water droplet formation."
Content from External Source
NOTE: the present average sulfur concentration of jet fuel is around 300-500 ppm with an upper limit mandate of 3,000 ppm. . . while the proposed ppm for cars (at a cost of $20 Billion and increased energy costs to produce) is 10ppm . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I was under the impression that people like David Keith have agreed Sulphur dispertion would not work for geoengineering. I will link later but it is in the UK report in another thread.

He might not like it but he sure thinks someone might try it . . .
David Keith on the Australian ABC . . .
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3639096.htm

Transcript
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Earlier today I spoke with geoengineering expert David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. He was in Calgary, Canada.
David Keith, thanks for joining us.
DAVID KEITH, APPLIED PHYSICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, HARVARD: Great to be here.
TONY JONES: Now scientists originally calculated that the major impact of global warming would happen towards the end of this century, so geoengineering was considered to be something far off in the distant and really science fiction for most people. Why the urgency now? Why has the debate changed?
DAVID KEITH: I think the debate's changed really because the sort of taboo that we wouldn't talk about it has been broken. So, people have actually known you could do these things for better or for worse for decades, actually since the '60s, but people were sort of afraid to talk about them in polite company for fear that just talking about it would let people off the hook so they wouldn't cut emissions.

TONY JONES: Do you have any sort of idea at all what kind of timescale there might be before governments are forced to seriously consider this? Is it 10, 20, 30, 50 years?
DAVID KEITH: Well, forced is a very fuzzy word, so a popular thing to say in this business is to say that we would do it in the case of a climate emergency. But that's kind of easy to say. In a case of emergency we should do all sorts of wild things, but it's not clear what an emergency is. So I'm a little sticky with the word forced. But I think it could happen any time from a decade from now to many, many decades hence.
The big question right now really is: should we do research in the open atmosphere? Should we go outside of the laboratory and begin to actually tinker with the system and learn more about whether this will work or not. And I'm somebody who advocates that we do do such research.
And one thing that research may show is that this doesn't work as well as we think. And my view is: whether you're somebody who hopes this will work or hopes it doesn't, more knowledge is a good thing.
TONY JONES: So if you were given the go-ahead to do research and the funds to do it, because I imagine it would be very expensive, what would you actually do?
DAVID KEITH: It's not very expensive actually to begin to do little in-situ experiments. So I am working on one and many other people are. So what we would do - the experiment that I'm most involved with would look at a certain aspect of stratospheric chemistry, of the way that the ozone layer is damaged and we'd be looking at whether or not and how much increase of water vapour in the stratosphere, which may happen naturally, and also the increase of sulphate aerosols if we geoengineered might damage the ozone layer.

TONY JONES: Is it clear now or is it becoming clearer that the best strategy if you wanted to go to a global scale would be literally flooding the stratosphere with sulphate particles?
DAVID KEITH: I think the honest answer has to be that we don't know, that you need to do the research in order to have strong opinions about what's the right answer. I would say, you know, if you really put a gun to my head and said, "What's the very most likely thing to work right now?" that's probably it. And the reason is because it mimics what nature has done.
So we have big volcanoes that put sulphur in the stratosphere and we know something about the bad impacts of that and we know something about what it does to cool the planet. And so it seems pretty likely that since we'd be putting in much less than nature puts in, at least for the first half century or more, that we could actually do something and control the risks.

TONY JONES: Yes, is there a fear raised by what you're saying that some country, a superpower, China, for example, has been suggested, could actually do something like this unilaterally and thereby create conflict over the whole idea of geo-engineering?
DAVID KEITH: Yes, it's certainly possible. So, there's no question it's technically possible to do it unilaterally. So, the actual materials you need, the aircraft and engineering you need to do this are something that would be in reach easily of any of the G20 states. It's not hard to do. You could buy the equipment from many aeronautical contractors.
So in that sense it could be done unilaterally. I think that there are scenarios under which it would happen in the real world unilaterally, but I don't think we should - I mean, I think you can exaggerate that possibility.

TONY JONES: And final question, because you probably - if someone decided to do this, even if a group of nations decided to do this, there'd be tremendous scepticism in the public and you would, I imagine, get widespread protests, particularly when people realise that with sulphate particles in the atmosphere you'd actually change the colour of the sky, which has a really big psychological effect on people, you would imagine.
How serious first of all would that change of colour be if you really were able to do it on a global scale and would you expect protests?
DAVID KEITH: I think the change of colour would probably be invisible. I think it wouldn't happen. So people have published papers where they get that, but only where they assume a quite large amount of geoengineering. They assume that geoengineering compensates all of the effect of climate change, which I think is a kind of nonsense policy.
Content from External Source
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
To get back to Micks point...adding small amounts of sulphur would not create persistent contrails.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
To get back to Micks point...adding small amounts of sulphur would not create persistent contrails.

I think that is correct . . . there is no evidence to support otherwise . . . http://elib.dlr.de/31966/1/gltt-22.pdf
In situ observations of particles in jet aircraft exhausts and contrails for different sulfur-containing fuels The high-sulfur contrail grew more quickly but also evaporated earlier than the low-sulfur contrail. At plume ages of about 20 s, each engine plume was diluted to an effective diameter of 20 m. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD03405/abstract
Content from External Source
 
J

Joe

Guest
Increasing sulfur content of Commercial Fleet : This option involved increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20.000 planes today ) from 0.004%to 0.6% and increasing it to 0.9%by 2050 . The sulfur in the jet fuel is converted to sulfur dioxide and emitted in the exhaust , where eventually reacts with water vapor , forming sulfuric acid gas and then the sulfuric acid aerosol . as noted before . the sulfuric acid aerosol scatters sunlight , The level in the jet fuel is raised each year to match the additional radiative forcing expected from increased greenhouse gas emissions
Content from External Source
maybe like this ? Like the frog in boiling water little by little so that no one notices it ?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I suspect it would be trivially easy to buy some jet fuel and test the sulphur content to see whether this was happening or not.
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I also suspect that adding sulphur in higher quantities would change the specific gravity of the fuel. Weight is all important when flying. That would be noticed.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I also suspect that adding sulphur in higher quantities would change the specific gravity of the fuel. Weight is all important when flying. That would be noticed.

When I did a numbers check on the amount one could get away with it was around 1% of the fuel volume . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
3000ppm is 0.3% - IIRC jet fuel has an allowed range for specific gravity - I doubt a change in the sulphur content would move it outside that - since 3000ppm is within the specification of the fuel the specified SG will account for it.

Edit: Found it in Def Std 91-91 Rev 7 (of course! :)) - Min 775.0 Max 840.0 kg/m^3 at 15 deg C - in "Test Requirements" section 3.3
 

TWCobra

Senior Member.
When I did a numbers check on the amount one could get away with it was around 1% of the fuel volume . . .

That would be 1% of the fuel volume that isn't available to propel the aircraft. That would be noticed.

I have no fundamental problem with sulphur being added to fuel for these purposes provided it is safe from an operational and environmental viewpoint. If it was decided that it was necessary and safe by competent people, fine by me.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Guys, you have now entered a field where I have some experience. For those who don't know me, I have a BSci. degree in Marine Engineering. The studies concentrated in power production and transfer with a concentration on steam boilers and turbines, diesel engines, electric generators and with various auxiliary systems like pumps, ship structures, refrigeration, etc. Upon graduation, however, I had the opportunity to receive training at the General Electric company's Field Engineering Training Center in New York for steam and gas turbine engineering and the largest marine reduction gear sets made. Subsequently, I worked for GE as a gas turbine field maintenance engineer out of the Houston, Texas office. Later, I also worked as a Gas Turbine Maintenance Engineer for the Hess Oil company refinery in the US. Virgin Islands. Part of my work was making detailed inspections of gas turbine blades and nozzles for defects. I have some skill and experience in this field.

The relevance here is that even if pilots or bystanders were not aware of increases in fuel sulfur content, the people who maintain, repair and purchase the hot gas path parts so exposed would have to figure it out. The problem is that sulfur corrodes metal, and heat vastly accelerates the process. Fuel with increased sulfur produces high temperature sulfur corrosion, also known as sulfidation. Sulfidation proceeds when water and sulfur produce sulfuric acid which not only affects the surface metal but actually gets through protective coatings down inside the grains of the blade base metal, depleting specific alloy metals which give the blade significant strength at high temperatures and forms a stress point leading to cracking and eventually catastrophic blade failure.

It is real bad news. You are talking here about an order of magnitude or maybe more in sulfur content. It would make a BIG difference in the rate of corrosion Lots more people would get involved as blades have to be cleaned replaced and begin to experience increased failures. Warranty claims get people pointing fingers, fuel samples get scrutinized, engineering studies and photomicrographs of metal get made, electron spectroscopic analysis is done and the issue gets attention.

If you'd like more details, here is a link to a fairly technical article on the subject:
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10387209/sulfidation-high-temperature-turbine-blade-corrosion

turbinebladecorroded2.jpg

corrosion details.gif

alloy depleted zones.jpg
 
J

Joe

Guest
Aircraft jet engines directly emit aerosols and condensable
gases, such as water vapor (H?O) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) which
lead to the formation of new liquid (volatile) sulfuric acid
(H2S04), particles in the early plume by gas-to-particle
conversion (nucleation) processes. Soot aerosol formed during
incomplete fuel combustion constitute part of the nonvolatile
particle fraction. The newly formed particles grow by
condensation and coagulation amongst themselves and with the
background aerosol
Content from External Source
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/99-0385.pdf ???
 
J

Joe

Guest
Guys, you have now entered a field where I have some experience. For those who don't know me, I have a BSci. degree in Marine Engineering. The studies concentrated in power production and transfer with a concentration on steam boilers and turbines, diesel engines, electric generators and with various auxiliary systems like pumps, ship structures, refrigeration, etc. Upon graduation, however, I had the opportunity to receive training at the General Electric company's Field Engineering Training Center in New York for steam and gas turbine engineering and the largest marine reduction gear sets made. Subsequently, I worked for GE as a gas turbine field maintenance engineer out of the Houston, Texas office. Later, I also worked as a Gas Turbine Maintenance Engineer for the Hess Oil company refinery in the US. Virgin Islands. Part of my work was making detailed inspections of gas turbine blades and nozzles for defects. I have some skill and experience in this field.

The relevance here is that even if pilots or bystanders were not aware of increases in fuel sulfur content, the people who maintain, repair and purchase the hot gas path parts so exposed would have to figure it out. The problem is that sulfur corrodes metal, and heat vastly accelerates the process. Fuel with increased sulfur produces high temperature sulfur corrosion, also known as sulfidation. Sulfidation proceeds when water and sulfur produce sulfuric acid which not only affects the surface metal but actually gets through protective coatings down inside the grains of the blade base metal, depleting specific alloy metals which give the blade significant strength at high temperatures and forms a stress point leading to cracking and eventually catastrophic blade failure.

It is real bad news. You are talking here about an order of magnitude or maybe more in sulfur content. It would make a BIG difference in the rate of corrosion Lots more people would get involved as blades have to be cleaned replaced and begin to experience increased failures. Warranty claims get people pointing fingers, fuel samples get scrutinized, engineering studies and photomicrographs of metal get made, electron spectroscopic analysis is done and the issue gets attention.

If you'd like more details, here is a link to a fairly technical article on the subject:
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10387209/sulfidation-high-temperature-turbine-blade-corrosion


Content from external source:

Aircraft jet engines directly emit aerosols and condensable
gases, such as water vapor (H?O) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) which
lead to the formation of new liquid (volatile) sulfuric acid
(H2S04), particles in the early plume by gas-to-particle
conversion (nucleation) processes. Soot aerosol formed during
incomplete fuel combustion constitute part of the nonvolatile
particle fraction. The newly formed particles grow by
condensation and coagulation amongst themselves and with the
background aerosol


http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/99-0385.pdf ??
Content from External Source

 
Last edited by a moderator:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There are strategies to use aircraft to reduce global warming that don't use sulfur. . . .



Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
David L Mitchell and WilliamFinnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV89512-1095, USA
E-mail: david.mitchell@dri.edu
Received 1 April 2009
Accepted 12 August 2009
Published 30 October 2009


Abstract. Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than–2.8 W m–2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m–2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.



http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/fulltext

Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
He thinks it COULD be done - that's not the same as someone MIGHT do it.
He sure has invested much time and effort to prove it is possible and design methods to accomplish geoengineering using sulfur. . .


http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ntial-to-reducing-the-risk-of-climate-change/


Keith and some of his colleagues recently hired engineers to estimate how much one approach to sulfate injection might work, and how much it might cost. It could be done at first with existing airplanes—certain business jets can fly high enough to inject the particles into the upper atmosphere. Eventually we would need new planes that can fly higher. All in all, once the procedure is scaled up it would cost about a billion dollars a year and require about 100 aircraft. That’s cheap enough for most countries to pull off on their own.
Content from External Source
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is the study . . .


Cost Analysis Final Report
Prepared Under Contract to The University Of Calgary
Contract Number: __UC01-001______
Aurora Report Number: ____AR10-182__ October 30, 2010


http://www.agriculturedefensecoalit...2010_AR10_182_University_of_Calgary_Keith.pdf


2 Geoengineering Concept of Operations
This study focuses on airplane and airship operations to the stratosphere to release a geoengineering payload with the goal of reducing incoming solar flux. Airships are also considered for this mission. To provide a comparison to conventional aircraft opera- tions, more exotic concepts such as rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are also ex- amined.


For maximum cooling impact, the particulate payloads are best placed near the equator. This study assumes that the payload is released within latitudes 30°N and 30°S, though North-South basing location had minimal effect on cost. Transit operations, flying East- West between equally spaced bases around the equator, were examined as a method to ensure adequate dispersal of the payload around the equator. Global winds aid in East-West dispersal so a smaller number of bases and shorter range systems (referred to as Regional operations) can be employed with minimal impact on dispersal. Region- al operations allow the dispersal leg length to be dictated by the desired release rate of 0.03kg/m flown. This means the airplanes fly no further than they have to, on the order of 300-800 km, and fuel costs are minimized. Transit operations are not economical as the leg length is dictated by the distance between bases (for 8-base operations, legs are approximately 5,000 km) causing release rates to be low and fuel costs to be high.


A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:


x Regional: 747s operating regionally from multiple bases
o 14 airplanes, payload dispersed over 1,500 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.036 kg/m flown
o $0.8B for acquisition and $1B for one year of operations o 0.66M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 8 bases
o 24 airplanes, payload dispersed over 5,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.012 kg/m flown
o $1.4 B for acquisition and $2.8B for one year of operations o 1.6M tonnes fuel burned per year


x Transit: 747s transiting from 4 bases
o 48 airplanes, payload dispersed over 11,000 km cruise leg at a rate of
0.005 kg/m flown
o $2.8B for acquisition and $4.5B for one year of operations o 3.24M tonnes fuel burned per year

Content from External Source
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
George said:
A comparison of regional and transit operations utilizing Boeing 747s (at its service ceiling of 45,000 feet) is as follows:

Just a quick note. George is well aware that the study he is quoting requires 747's to fly up into mid-stratosphere, and specifically defines that altitude as between 60,000 and 100,000 feet.

This is FAR beyond the altitude capability of the 747 or any other commercially available jet capable of plausibly performing geoengineering. The examples given by Keith were simply to show the scale of what would be required to operate a MODIFIED heavy jet like the 747.

George brings this stuff out whenever a newby comes around. It has been debunked numerous times before.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
George,
It is time to put up or shut up as we used to say in Texas.
There is no reason to speculate about the subject of this thread.
Sulfur level in jet fuel is extremely easy to test for and impossible to hide.
Many many fuel samples and tests are performed daily.
Jet fuel is not a secret product which ordinary people cannot obtain to determine what is in it.
Current average price is ~$5.50
It is available 24 hours/day worldwide.
Here is a list of FBO's in Texas.
http://www.acukwik.com/FBO/TX/TEXAS
Here is a typical jet fuel testing lab:
http://www.intertek.com/petroleum/testing/jet-fuel/
Get a jet fuel sample analyzed and present it.
If you don't you are "trash" talking.

As an aside, yesterday my ship loaded 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel. As required by law, I took a 16 oz sample which I must keep for at least one year. I imagine that similar requirements are in place for jet fuel.

Lastly, to see what sort of precautions are taken to maintain jet fuel purity, here is an example:
http://www.millenniumsystemsintl.com/techarticles/airbeat_julaug03.htm
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
He sure has invested much time and effort to prove it is possible and design methods to accomplish geoengineering using sulfur. . .

]

Believe it or not but there are a great deal of scientists that spend a great deal of time trying to prove the viability of something, only for it then to be ignored or left on the shelf. In academia I worked on a number of projects which were ultimately shelved. Even my 3 year phd ended getting ignored. Some scientist end up working on projects and submitting grant applications to keep themselves going it seems.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
He sure has invested much time and effort to prove it is possible and design methods to accomplish geoengineering using sulfur. . .


http://www.technologyreview.com/new...ntial-to-reducing-the-risk-of-climate-change/


Keith and some of his colleagues recently hired engineers to estimate how much one approach to sulfate injection might work, and how much it might cost. It could be done at first with existing airplanes—certain business jets can fly high enough to inject the particles into the upper atmosphere. Eventually we would need new planes that can fly higher. All in all, once the procedure is scaled up it would cost about a billion dollars a year and require about 100 aircraft. That’s cheap enough for most countries to pull off on their own.
Content from External Source

Did you have a point??:confused:

Seriously - it's not a rhetorical question.

The guy is an authority on SRM - why wouldn't he be studying various techniques??

Your post still shows that people/countries COULD do it - it speaks nothing at all to whether or not they MIGHT do it.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George,
It is time to put up or shut up as we used to say in Texas.
There is no reason to speculate about the subject of this thread.
Sulfur level in jet fuel is extremely easy to test for and impossible to hide.
Many many fuel samples and tests are performed daily.
Jet fuel is not a secret product which ordinary people cannot obtain to determine what is in it.
Current average price is ~$5.50
It is available 24 hours/day worldwide.
Here is a list of FBO's in Texas.
http://www.acukwik.com/FBO/TX/TEXAS
Here is a typical jet fuel testing lab:
http://www.intertek.com/petroleum/testing/jet-fuel/
Get a jet fuel sample analyzed and present it.
If you don't you are "trash" talking.

As an aside, yesterday my ship loaded 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel. As required by law, I took a 16 oz sample which I must keep for at least one year. I imagine that similar requirements are in place for jet fuel.

Lastly, to see what sort of precautions are taken to maintain jet fuel purity, here is an example:
http://www.millenniumsystemsintl.com/techarticles/airbeat_julaug03.htm
In Posts #1, 3 & 8 . . . I clearly indicated that increasing the Sulfur content in the fuel upto 3,000 ppm was not an effective strategy . . . so testing is not necessary . . .
 

dan theman

New Member
http://www.cfr.org/content/thinktank/GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf


The quote below is from a meeting at Council of Foreign Relations

Geoengineering Strategies

Among all geoengineering schemes, those currently considered most feasible involve increasing the planetary albedo, that is, reflecting more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed. There are a number of different methods that could be used to increase the planet’s reflectivity:

1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere which is located between 15 and 50 kilometers above the Earth’s surface).

2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere (the troposphere)

3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.

4. Change large portions of the planet’s land cover from things that are dark (absorbing) such as trees to things that are light (reflecting) such as open snowcover or grasses.
Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Do both of those links I posted talk about their intentions to utilize different types of geoengineering?

No. They are just discussing issues related to the possible use of geoengineering in the future.

Like you might talk about land rights on the Moon, it does not actually mean you are planning to go colonize it next year. Just that it's something that might happen, and even something that other people might do (or propose doing) and you'd have to deal with the consequences.
 

dan theman

New Member
To answer Mikes question of:

"it speaks nothing at all to whether or not they MIGHT do it."

They might.

---

See I know where to look to find out if they might, but where do I look to find if they actually are?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It wasn't a question, and yes, they might.

So might you. So might I.

Lots of people "might" do lots of things - and we keep an eye out to see if they ARE doing things that they shouldn't - if you've ever passed through an airport security checkpoint you will have experienced such surveillance!!

By all means keep an eye out as to whether this is actually happening - but the fact that they "might" do it still remains no evidence whatsoever that they ARE doign it.
 

dan theman

New Member
So might you. So might I.

Lots of people "might" do lots of things - and we keep an eye out to see if they ARE doing things that they shouldn't - if you've ever passed through an airport security checkpoint you will have experienced such surveillance!!

It's very different than just you or I Mike. Those top government/parliamentary plans, which I cited, were written a few years ago, and talk about how they need to get started on it very soon. There are mentions of small tests which prove they are testing geoengineering, on a small scale.

That is evidence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Believe it or not but there are a great deal of scientists that spend a great deal of time trying to prove the viability of something, only for it then to be ignored or left on the shelf. In academia I worked on a number of projects which were ultimately shelved. Even my 3 year phd ended getting ignored. Some scientist end up working on projects and submitting grant applications to keep themselves going it seems.
Some academic musings when they have cost analysis accomplished via a contract to independent engineering firms speaks to me of the next step towards feasibility and operational testing . . . seems a step toward making theory . . . "Reality" . . . ;)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's very different than just you or I Mike. Those top government/parliamentary plans, which I cited, were written a few years ago, and talk about how they need to get started on it very soon. There are mentions of small tests which prove they are testing geoengineering, on a small scale.

That is evidence.

Evidence of what exactly?

And what do they need to get started on? Can you quote that bit?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It's very different than just you or I Mike.

At the moment there is nothing to stop an individual going ahead with something they feel like doing - someone recently dumped 100 tons of iron into the ocean off the Candian west coast as geoengineering

Those top government/parliamentary plans, which I cited, were written a few years ago, and talk about how they need to get started on it very soon. There are mentions of small tests which prove they are testing geoengineering, on a small scale.

That is evidence.

Yes - evidence that they are considering it.

Are you suggesting that it is evidence that "they" are doing "it"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dan theman

New Member
From UK Parliament

The Government’s focus on Plan A - the reduction of the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases—is an approach that is becoming increasingly untenable as geoengineering testing is already beginning

There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third,we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological,environmental, political and regulatory issues.


Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing,though Dr Blackstock added that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”.Professor Keith also explained that it was becoming urgent toundertake tests into stratospheric geoengineering as it had become clear that the main method that had been considered did not work. He explained that if sulphur was put in the stratosphere the way scientists have been assuming, it did not do what they expected. Tests were necessary and these would have “no detectable climate effect, but they would be subscale tests, and if we want to actually understand whether this technology works or it does not, we need to do those tests relatively soon”


.

Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They are talking about regulating, not doing it.

The Russian "test" was simply to measure the effect of smoke on sunlight.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Did you have a point??:confused:

Seriously - it's not a rhetorical question.

The guy is an authority on SRM - why wouldn't he be studying various techniques??

Your post still shows that people/countries COULD do it - it speaks nothing at all to whether or not they MIGHT do it.
Well if I talk about something and I contract an engineering firm to do cost analysis of different strategies to accomplish the "something" it raises the ante in the poker game in my view of the world especially when cost estimates have been proposed in the literature before . . . :) http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
George B Undetectable, Invisible, Theoretical, Covert Chemtrail Operations Contrails and Chemtrails 289
Top