1) The Military Industrial Complex.
2) Involved, yes, to varying degrees, and perhaps tangentially. I think you'd need to get more specific there.
What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails.
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
1) The Military Industrial Complex.
2) Involved, yes, to varying degrees, and perhaps tangentially. I think you'd need to get more specific there.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That is fine we can refine the definition with specific examples later . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I have shown his (Teller's) long history with Atmospheric issues and involvement in policy and public debate, that LLNL has a long established history . . . will you not agree he as significant and recognized involvement with geoengineering???
To a degree yes, but those are rather vague terms. He contributed to a few papers, but I'm not sure where he fits in the "significant" scale.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/231636.pdf
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I can live with that . . . he was involved . . . the degree is debatable . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick
Would you agree that the debate for using geoengineering to stem global warming has reached the level of urgency and the concept goes back decades . . .?
Would you agree that the debate for using geoengineering to stem global warming has reached the level of urgency and the concept goes back decades . . .?
Geoengineering the Climate? The Need for Global Debate is Urgent and Real
http://politicsinspires.org/2011/10...he-need-for-global-debate-is-urgent-and-real/
Discussions about geoengineering the climate are not new (Fleming, 2010). In 1965, US President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee tabled a report, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, calling for large-scale research into possibilities of counteracting climate change in response to the anticipated future increase of anthropogenic CO2 (President’s Science Advisory Committee, 1965). The Advisory Committee suggested potential counter-measures such as the enhancement of the Earth’s albedo by dispersing reflective particles on the sea surface. Almost five decades later, the geoengineering option is back on the table. The limits of mitigation and adaptation in responding to climate change, coupled with the risk of reaching or passing tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, make it extremely difficult for policymakers to categorically exclude the geoengineering option. However, this needs to be a global rather than a trans-Atlantic endeavour.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#
Global Warming & Climate Change
Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists. The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades
Last edited by a moderator:
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I would say it is about two different environments . . . one in the scientific community (Geophysics, atmospheric science, geoengineering, etc.) and one is in the public media . . . I am more concerned in the scientific community . . . how dire is the situation and how far back the fears were recognized and action recommended . . .
If nothing improves do you not think the situation will eventually require geoengineering mitigation to avoid disaster . . . ??
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx
Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop
Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated
by Frank Newport
12>
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans' concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 -- in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunguy45
Senior Member.
I wasn't disregarding anything said, or questioning credentials (to use that term)....and I appreciated the clarification. Knowing where someone is coming from and their background helps me when it comes to evaluating their perspective. I don't care if someone is a homegrown chemist/physicist/lawyer...as long as they don't make claims they can't back up.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick,
Will you validate the existence of the following projects . . . DEW I, DEW II, and Operation LAC?
Will you validate the existence of the following projects . . . DEW I, DEW II, and Operation LAC?
Similar program in the UK . . . http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2669&#Post2669http://bearmarketnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/toxicologic-assessment-of-armys-zinc.html
Dew I
Operation Dew I consisted of five separate trials from March 26, 1952 until April 21, 1952 that were designed to test the feasibility of maintaining a large aerosol cloud released offshore until it drifted over land, achieving a large area coverage.[2] The tests released zinc cadmium sulfide along a 100-to-150-nautical-mile (190 to 280 km) line approximately 5 to 10 nautical miles (10 to 20 km) off the coast of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.[2] Two of the trials dispersed clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide over large areas of all three U.S. states. The tests affected over 60,000 square miles (150,000 km²) of populated coastal region in the U.S. southeast.[3] The Dew I releases were from a Navy minesweeper, the USS Tercel.[2]
Dew II
Dew II involved the release of fluorescent particles and Lycopodium spores from an aircraft.[2] Dew II was described in a 1953 Army report which remained classified at the time of a 1997 report by the U.S. National Research Council concerning the U.S. Army's zinc cadmium sulfide dispersion program of the 1950s.[2]
Operation LAC
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation LAC was undertaken in 1957 and 1958 by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps.[2] Principally, the operation involved spraying large areas with zinc cadmium sulfide.[1] The U.S. Air Force loaned the Army a C-119, "Flying Boxcar", and it was used to disperse zinc cadmium sulfide by the ton in the atmosphere over the United States.[3] The first test occurred on December 2, 1957 along a path from South Dakota to International Falls, Minnesota.[4]
The tests were designed to determine the dispersion and geographic range of biological or chemical agents.[3] Stations on the ground tracked the fluorescent zinc cadmium sulfide particles.[3] During the first test and subsequently, much of the material dispersed ended up being carried by winds into Canada.[4] However, as was the case in the first test, particles were detected up to 1,200 miles away from their drop point.[3][4] A typical flight line covering 400 miles would release 5,000 pounds of zinc cadmium sulfide and in fiscal year 1958 around 100 hours were spent in flight for LAC.[4] That flight time included four runs of various lengths, one of which was 1,400 miles.[4]
Specific tests
The December 2, 1957 test was incomplete due to a mass of cold air coming down from Canada.[4] It carried the particles from their drop point and then took a turn northeast, taking most of the particles into Canada with it. Military operators considered the test a partial success because some of the particles were detected 1,200 miles away, at a station in New York state.[4] A February 1958 test at Dugway Proving Ground ended similarly. Another Canadian air mass swept through and carried the particles into the Gulf of Mexico.[4] Two other tests, one along a path from Toledo, Ohio to Abilene, Texas, and another from Detroit, to Springfield, Illinois, to Goodland, Kansas, showed that agents dispersed through this aerial method could achieve widespread coverage when particles were detected on both sides of the flight paths.[4]
Scope
According to Leonard A. Cole, an Army Chemical Corps document titled "Summary of Major Events and Problems" (1958) described the scope of Operation LAC. Cole stated that the document outlined that the tests were the largest ever undertaken by the Chemical Corps and that the test area stretched from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.[4] Other sources describe the scope of LAC varyingly, examples include, "Midwestern United States",[3] and "the states east of the Rockies".[1] Specific locations are mentioned as well. Some of those include: a path from South Dakota to Minneapolis, Minnesota,[2]Dugway Proving Ground, Corpus Christi, Texas, north-central Texas, and the San Francisco Bay area.[1]
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Conclusions about cadmium exposure from the above projects by a subcommittee in 1995 . . .
In July 1994, the Army asked the National Research Council to review the AEHA reports assessing the health risks for Corpus Christi, TX, and Minneapolis, MN (AEHA 1994), determine the reasonableness of the conclusions, and, if necessary, suggest recommendations for improving the assessments. In the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense appropriations, Congress responded to growing public-health concerns by directing the
secretary of defense to request an in-depth independent study by the Research Council of the possible adverse health effects of human exposure to ZnCdS as a result of the Army's dispersion tests. Consequently, the Army asked that the Research Council study on ZnCdS already under way be expanded substantially to determine the health risks associated with exposure to ZnCdS in all exposed U.S. locations, hold public meetings in selected cities where ZnCdS tests were conducted, and review the environmental fate of ZnCdS.
[h=3]CONCLUSIONS[/h]
The subcommittee has drawn valuable information and guidance from the presentations made at the public meetings and other comments submitted by the public. Members of the public who presented comments to the subcommittee were concerned about a wide array of health effects, including cancer and reproductive effects, and about whether these effects could have been caused by exposure to ZnCdS. They were also concerned about the possibility of increased risk to sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly. Moreover, people were outraged at being exposed to chemicals by the government without their knowledge or consent. The subcommittee did not address ethical and other social issues about the Army's dispersion tests; these questions are important, and the Army must develop a mechanism for addressing the public's sense of outrage, but these issues were beyond the subcommittee's charge and expertise.
In the remainder of this report, the subcommittee describes its attempt to determine whether diseases reported by people living in areas where ZnCdS was released are caused by ZnCdS. The subcommittee determined the biological plausibility of the diseases reported by the public to be caused by the exposures to ZnCdS and determined the extent to which the
exposures might have caused an increase in the diseases above background levels.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5739&page=17
Sure, they existed, and I've discussed them many times. But maybe you could stop and tell me where you are going with all this?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As we said we are seeing where we agree . . . I don't think I can think of any more right now . . . do you have any you would like me to agree to or acknowledge . . . the above are the major stumbling blocks for me to discount that preemptive geoengineering is NOT possible or even likely . . .
Seems to me we agree on many things . . .
I think we agree on most of the simple facts. Where we disagree is you conclusion that it's likely there's been a covert aerosol injection program going on for decades.
Most of the chemtrail advocates I talk do disagree in rather more fundamental ways - like claiming that contrails don't normally persist, or that soil aluminum levels are too high. You are unlike them.
Most of the chemtrail advocates I talk do disagree in rather more fundamental ways - like claiming that contrails don't normally persist, or that soil aluminum levels are too high. You are unlike them.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I understand . . . my issues are related to my distrust for a government and even global governmental structures . . . in the last three years I have learned things I never knew and have been greatly disillusioned . . . it is going to take time to believe anything again that I took for granted . . .
Gunguy45
Senior Member.
I guess I'm confused...you state you were an insider and had access to many things....but in the last 3 years you have learned things you never knew? Learned what? And from where exactly?
If these sources/things were out there before...well...why did you not know about them? Why don't we all? Seriously...I'm not being argumentative...but I'm just not getting it.....
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My inside information was related to process, personalities human behavior, cost over-runs, federal acquisition laws, etc . . . Lobbyists and undue influence, conflicts of interest . . . I was too busy doing my job to investigate beyond my technical and scientific world. . . . on call 365, 24/7 . . . now I can see the forest and it is full of disease far beyond any tree I worked with when I was in the forest . . .
I never imagined Project Northwoods for example or the laws I found on the books . . . I worked with many people with issues but never what I have found out since I retired . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
We can agree there was concern prior to 1977 that it was possible to use weather as a weapon and by logical extension the climate could be effected . . . this is supported by the creation of the following Treaty . . .
The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), formally the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques is an international treaty prohibiting the military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques. It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978. The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction. The Convention on Biological Diversity of 2010 would also ban some forms of weather modification or geoengineering.[2]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conv..._Use_of_Environmental_Modification_Techniques
SR1419
Senior Member.
There is a UN moratorium on geo-engineering implementation:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/299588
...although the US is not a signatory
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, from the same article . . .
However, the moratorium will not apply to those nations which have not ratified the Convention, and the United States is one of those nations not affected.
"... blasting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays; dumping iron particles in the oceans to nurture CO2-absorbing plankton; firing silver iodide into clouds to produce rain; genetically engineering crops to have reflective leaves; spraying seawater into clouds to make clouds whiter; dumping large quantities of plant matter into the ocean or turning it into charcoal for burying in soils."
Read more: http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/299588#ixzz27nO6ZHjs
Read more: http://m.digitaljournal.com/article/299588#ixzz27nNY299G
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Mick
Do feel you have answered my questions below? #128 above
Do feel you have answered my questions below? #128 above
Questions by George B
I would say it is about two different environments . . . one in the scientific community (Geophysics, atmospheric science, geoengineering, etc.) and one is in the public media . . . I am more concerned in the scientific community . . . how dire is the situation and how far back the fears were recognized and action recommended . . .
If nothing improves do you not think the situation will eventually require geoengineering mitigation to avoid disaster . . . ??
Only if things get worse. If they stay as they are, then things will be fine.
But you have to look at trajectories, if carbon levels continue to increase then geoengineering might help, but eventually the carbon needs to either stop rising, or be reduced. It can't rise indefinitely.
It MIGHT be true that geoengineering would be required to avoid a tipping point, but there's a vast amount of uncertainly there.
So I think your question is too broad for a yes/no answer. I'd respond "possibly".
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I can accept that . . . would you accept that the experts might disagree or possibly have information not available to the scientific community in general . . .as in classified sources ???
I think you'd have to quantify that question, as it's always true at some level.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I know you don't accept that preemptive geoengineering has or is ongoing but what if the classified information is . . . attempts at geoengineering were made but slowing warming was not successful but, however; did have a mild mitigating effect . . . conclusion . . . we are in bigger mess than we thought . . .
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Nope..............
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
As I stated before in this Thread . . . LLNL and Edward Teller were in the lead in technical development of geoengineering (stratospheric injection). . . . They are also the most likely to have and use classified information . . .
(LLNL) Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are so far the only ones who have modelled the stratospheric albedo modification scheme . . .
ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS: A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA?
An Editorial Essay
(LLNL) Researchers at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory are so far the only ones who have modelled the stratospheric albedo modification scheme. In a first study, Govindasamy and Caldeirau (2000) simulated this by reducing the solar luminos- ity by 1.8%, to balance future climate warming by a doubling of CO2. Although solar radiative forcing has a different physics and spatial distribution than the in- frared effects caused by CO2, the model results indicated that the global temper- ature response by both perturbations at the Earth’ surface and atmosphere largely cancelled out. Although these preliminary model results would be in favor a strato- spheric sulfur injection operation, the required annual S inputs are large, so that the possibility of adverse environmental side effects needs to be fully researched before the countermeasure to greenhouse warming is attempted. What has to be done first, is to explore whether using a sulfur injection scheme with advanced micro-physical and radiation process descriptions will show similar model results as the simple solar luminosity adjustment scheme of Govindasamy and Caldeira (2000). Further studies, following those conducted by Govindasamy (2003), should address the biological effects of the albedo modification scheme. As already men- tioned, injection of soot may be an alternative, but in need of critical analysis. Such studies by themselves, even when the experiment is never done, will be very informative.
Page 5
http://www.cogci.dk/news/Crutzen_albedo enhancement_sulfur injections.pdf
Climate change discussion moved to:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/804-Is-trying-to-alter-the-climate-a-waste-of-money
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/804-Is-trying-to-alter-the-climate-a-waste-of-money
Last edited:
MikeC
Closed Account
What it, what if, what if....
What if one day one realised that what if is not actually evidence??
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
More evidence that classified information was an integral part of significant activities at LLNL and this required security which was a bar to unfettered access . . . It would be logical to assume that these restrictions included data, information, tools, technology involved with atmospheric research as well . . .
Can a Million Tons of Sulfur Dioxide Combat Climate Change?By Chris Mooney 06.23.08
http://m.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-07/ff_geoengineering?currentPage=all
In 1993, the former peace activist accepted a research post at that haven of bombmakers, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Caldeira was running high-powered computer models to study the climate, but when he was offered a security clearance that would have allowed fuller access to the lab's resources, he tried to stay true to his old principles by declining. As a result, he didn't see much of Wood. "There's an outer fence at Livermore, and then there's an inner fence," Caldeira says. "Lowell worked inside the fence."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
One question is . . . if geoengineering was felt necessary . . . what would be the motive for covert operations . . . the discussion found below reveals some reasons . . . side effects are likely . . . so keep operations secret . . .
Will Geoengineering With Solar Radiation Management Ever Be Used?
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WillGeoBeUsed.pdf
Global agreement is not necessary for regional- or global-scale geoengineering to be implemented. What if one country determined that intervention would benefit them, say by relieving drought caused by global warming, and their research showed that the negative aspects elsewhere would be minimal? In this rather unlikely event, and if the research proved correct, there may be no retribution. Yet the creation of a stratospheric cloud in one location will allow the cloud to spread globally if in the Tropics and covering half a hemisphere in high latitudes, so it is bound to have large-scale effects. Similarly, cloud brightening on a scale large enough to change regional climate will also have effects in other nations. And it is highly unlikely that the effects outside the target area will be only positive, or that it will be possible to determine them amidst the weather noise.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
The purpose of this thread is to determine where debunkers and advocates have some agreement . . . if some speculation is inappropriate . . . Mick can set the rules . . . I am basing all discussion on cites sources . . .What it, what if, what if....
What if one day one realised that what if is not actually evidence??
But it's easy to agree with vague generalities.
I totally agree that IF there was a secret set of super scientists who are years ahead of public research into climate, and IF they had discovered that geoengineering was necessary to save the planet, and IF they knew they would not get worldwide agreement in time, and IF they were well connected to the military, and IF nobody found out, and IF their program had no measurable effect, THEN it makes perfect when that there's a covert geoengineering program.
My biggest problem with the theory is this idea that the thousands of climate scientists around the world are somehow decades behind a few secret climate scientists. That makes zero sense to me.
I totally agree that IF there was a secret set of super scientists who are years ahead of public research into climate, and IF they had discovered that geoengineering was necessary to save the planet, and IF they knew they would not get worldwide agreement in time, and IF they were well connected to the military, and IF nobody found out, and IF their program had no measurable effect, THEN it makes perfect when that there's a covert geoengineering program.
My biggest problem with the theory is this idea that the thousands of climate scientists around the world are somehow decades behind a few secret climate scientists. That makes zero sense to me.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
In decades behind are you referring specifically to what?
1) The data to determine if geoengineering is needed (urgent) and will work ?
2) The necessary technology to inject the aerosols and to keep it covert?
3) Other?
1&2, but mostly #1
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Regarding . . . will it work? . . . if implemented . . .seems one writer believes it can only be tested by full implementation . . .
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.short
A Test for Geoengineering?
Summary
Scientific and political interest in the possibility of geoengineering the climate is rising (1). There are currently no means of implementing geoengineering, but if a viable technology is produced in the next decade, how could it be tested? We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Can we agree that the US Government was willing to spend 400 million plus in 2011 to among related issues differentiate the sources of atmospheric aerosols . . .
Seems to represent Prima Facie evidence that the technology to identify the source of sulfur compounds in the stratosphere is inadequate . . . thus any conclusions on anthropomorphic versus natural sources is speculation . . .
The Glory satellite was a planned NASA satellite mission that would have collected data on the chemical, micro-physical and optical properties—and the spatial and temporal distributions—of sulfate and other aerosols, and would have collected solar irradiance data for the long-term climate record. The science focus areas served by Glory included: atmospheric composition; carbon cycle, ecosystems, and biogeochemistry; climate variability and change; and water and energy cycles.[1] The satellite was lost on March 4, 2011, when its Taurus XL carrier rocket malfunctioned.[2] The cost of the satellite was US$424 million.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite)
MikeC
Closed Account
The section you quote points out that its was to collect information on the characteristics of aerosols nd their effect on climate, not the SOURCE of them - you really need to stop trying to pass one thing off as another!!
the instrumentation package consisted of -
Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor
the Cloud camera:
and the total Irradiance monitor:
So ther is no evidence ther about the technology to identify the source of sulfur compounds.
And it seems to me to be primae facae evidene that hte technology to measure the climate change effects of clouds, aerosols and irradiation is quiet good - if only we can get the rockets to work OK!!
the instrumentation package consisted of -
Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor
the Cloud camera:
and the total Irradiance monitor:
So ther is no evidence ther about the technology to identify the source of sulfur compounds.
And it seems to me to be primae facae evidene that hte technology to measure the climate change effects of clouds, aerosols and irradiation is quiet good - if only we can get the rockets to work OK!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Claim - UFO Crashes near Las Vegas, crash captured on Cop's Body-cam- Latest: NorCal Dave
-
-
-