Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I'm not trying to disprove chemtrails.

Debunking, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary

"To expose the sham or falsehood of a subject"


​

Key word, "Subject". Chemtrails is a subject.

I still think you should call it unsubstantiated, not debunked.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Would it be possible to identify some of the scientists that do take geoengineering into account . . . ??

Define scientist.... hehe. That could be anyone. Even if you found an expert..... experts disagree with each other.
[h=1]Expert vs. Expert[/h]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_oEs33VD5A

Then of course opinion always comes into play. Who do you think is more authoritative or more convincing?
Experience is the path to true knowledge. Just believing one person over another proves absolutely nothing!

 

[Trailspotter]

So as a scientist you can say without question the increase in sulfur concentration in the stratosphere is accounted for by coal burning from China and previously unaccounted for volcanic eruptions not to mention normal atmospheric variations . . . and that the anthropomorphic unknown contributions they all hedge with can not be from a geoengineering source . . .???

No, I did not say anything without question on the sulfur concentration in stratosphere. This topic is about ice cores, varves, tree rings and similar chronological records of atmosphere pollutants. It is my informed opinion that it will be unlikely to find a convincing evidence for alleged covert geoengineering in such records.

 

[George B]

No, I did not say anything without question on the sulfur concentration in stratosphere. This topic is about ice cores, varves, tree rings and similar chronological records of atmosphere pollutants. It is my informed opinion that it will be unlikely to find a convincing evidence for alleged covert geoengineering in such records.

While the two are not the same . . . would you not agree eventually . . . if geoengineering were ongoing . . . and sulfur compounds were being injected into the stratosphere they would sooner or later find their way into an ice core . . . ???

So please humor me . . . can science say that they know the sources of all stratospheric aerosols and geoengineering is therefore not possible or likely . . ???

 

[Mick West]

Debunking, according to Merriam Webster's Dictionary

"To expose the sham or falsehood of a subject"


​

Key word, "Subject". Chemtrails is a subject.

I still think you should call it unsubstantiated, not debunked.

Call what unsubstantiated?

I'm debunking. If I say something is debunked I'm generally referring to a sub-claim, like "contrails do not persist longer than 2 minutes", which I think you'd agree has been debunked.

"Chemtrails" has not been debunked, because it's not well defined, it's a whole bunch of different theories about someone spraying something. It's impossible to prove that nobody is spraying anything, so you can "debunk" the entire subject.

However you can debunk the evidence. If you want to get all dictionary, then I'm exposing the sham or falsehood of the variety of subjects associated with the chemtrail topic.

 

[George B]

Define scientist.... hehe. That could be anyone. Even if you found an expert..... experts disagree with each other.
Expert vs. Expert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_oEs33VD5A

Then of course opinion always comes into play. Who do you think is more authoritative or more convincing?
Experience is the path to true knowledge. Just believing one person over another proves absolutely nothing!

I would define a scientist as someone with the credentials that would withstand the scrutiny of experts in a field of scientific exploration and would be found as adequate to debate respectfully with their peers and not be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant . . .

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Call what unsubstantiated?

WITWATS. You say it is debunked instead of unsubstantiated. Saying that the film itself is debunked, implies that the subject it covers is also debunked.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I would define a scientist as someone with the credentials that would withstand the scrutiny of experts in a field of scientific exploration and would be found as adequate to debate respectfully with their peers and not be dismissed out of hand as irrelevant . . .

Being accredited can be politicized. For example, every B.A.R. association (barring Texas no pun intended) requires you to have a degree from an institution before you are even ALLOWED to take the qualifying exam. You are not even allowed to PROVE that you know your stuff and can pass the final exam unless you PAY someone to vouch for you! This to me is not a good indication of someone being reliable... only that some stranger says that they knew their stuff because they were paid to say that.

I just heard a story about a guy who went to college for engineering... and mistakenly received a doctorate for only completing a bachelors program! In his will he admitted that the college made a mistake... and they gave him a P.H.D.! He kept the secret until his death. I take nothing at face value, including credentials. Let someones past and present accomplishments determine their level of expertise. The smartest people many times never attend college.

 

[solrey]

So what you're saying, George, is those in charge of this alleged covert operation are so concerned about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming they would take great risk to implement an aerosol injection program... yet all the while recognizing solar energy as a major factor in climate, (counter to the scientific "consensus" I might add), and adjust aerosol output according to solar activity rather than the continued increase in CO2 output. mmmmmkay. You do realize that aerosols stay in the stratosphere for at least 2 years and spread evenly around the globe, right? What you might call a lag in the system. So if there's been a slight decrease in background aerosols starting around the middle of '09 into early '10 according to the data, that means they would have had to have started reducing aerosol output around the time of solar minimum... when the predictions for the coming solar cycle were for it to be the strongest in a century. A prediction of solar activity that should have encouraged them to accelerate aerosol output, not reduce it. You really haven't thought this through very well have you? Indeed, as temperatures started increasing in the '80's (which would require increasing aerosols to counteract the rise in temps), background aerosols started decreasing in the '90's after Pinatubo. So when did they start this alleged covert aerosol injection program, George?

Here's a recently published detailed analysis of stratospheric aerosols that basically rules out anthropogenic sources for any of the increase in background stratospheric aerosols.

35 years of stratospheric aerosol measurements at Garmisch-Partenkirchen: from Fuego to Eyjafjallajokull, and beyond

The interpretation of their trends by Hofmann et al. (2009) by an impact of the growing Asian air pollution is, therefore, questionable. The influence of such a big source with continuous emissions should have led to a comparable increase in particles over Central Europe.

Vernier et al. (2011b), by analysing satellite data, meanwhile ascribed the increase to volcanic eruptions in the (sub)tropics and rejected the coal-burning hypothesis. This is strongly supported by the results of our analysis(Sect. 3.2). There is a clear rise in volcanic activity in the tropics, much earlier than that in the mid-latitudes. Most importantly, there have been one and more eruptions per year reaching altitudes around the tropical tropopause.

They've identified volcanoes as the sole source of background aerosols. Stick a fork in it, George... it's done.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The influence of such a big source with continuous emissions should have led to a comparable increase in particles over Central Europe.
What this tells me, is that the emissions are not showing up in the tests, but the emissions had to have gone somewhere. We are just not testing in the correct places.

Better pull that fork back out.

 

[solrey]

Hey SDB...READ THE DAMN PAPER! It's about aerosols in the stratosphere and they did not detect aerosols from coal burning in Asia in the stratosphere. We are looking in the right places because there have been numerous studies on dust/particulate/aerosol transport from Asia and so we know aerosols from Asia have gone somewhere... IN THE TROPOSPHERE, and the particulates have been found to be deposited in North America, primarily the west coast. What the paper shows is the aerosols from Asia, or any other non-volcanic source, are just not making their way into the STRATOSPHERE in any detectable quantity.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Now now, lets remain civil here.
So we need to test deposits then (ice cores, varves), not the stratosphere right?

 

[George B]

So what you're saying, George, is those in charge of this alleged covert operation are so concerned about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming they would take great risk to implement an aerosol injection program... yet all the while recognizing solar energy as a major factor in climate, (counter to the scientific "consensus" I might add), and adjust aerosol output according to solar activity rather than the continued increase in CO2 output. mmmmmkay. You do realize that aerosols stay in the stratosphere for at least 2 years and spread evenly around the globe, right? .

1) I did NOT mean to imply it was THE major factor . . . however, there is much discussion regarding the long term consequences of a return of the Maunder Minimum . . . which would lead anyone playing with the future climatic conditions of the earth to do some long term speculation and possibly short term tweaking . . . based upon some tropospheric clearing with abatement programs, possible reductions in volcanic activity, and so forth . . . I am sure their computer modeling and knowledge base is the best money can buy.

According to these results, a 21st-century Maunder Minimum would only slightly diminish future warming. Moreover, it would be only a temporary effect since all known grand solar minima have only lasted for a few decades. Critics of this result might argue that the solar forcing in these experiments is only based on the estimated change in total irradiance, which might be an underestimate, or that does not include potential indirect amplifying effects (via an ozone response to UV changes, or galactic cosmic rays affecting clouds). However, our model reproduces the historic Maunder minimum with these estimates of solar irradiance. Furthermore, even if one multiplied the solar effects by a huge factor of 5 (which is unrealistic), no absolute cooling would take place (the temperatures would be temporarily cooler than the base scenario, but the trends would still be warming).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

2) Lag time ranges form a few weeks to possibly two years ;however, and depends upon the particulate size, its injected concentration, altitude and region of the earth injected just to name the major factors . . . wet and dry fall . . . I would think is something someone employing geoengineering would at least think they would know much about . . . and would most likely engineer the aerosols to allow maximum flexibility to changing circumstances . . . so if they needed to nudge their contribution to the albedo of the earth down a bit in a few weeks or months they could do so and not have to wait two years . . . sorry . . .. . . your premise doesn't fly . . .

 

[Mick West]

WITWATS. You say it is debunked instead of unsubstantiated. Saying that the film itself is debunked, implies that the subject it covers is also debunked.

The film is the subject. That's what I debunked. It implies nothing more.

I think you are getting a little caught up in semantics. What's important here is that a lot of evidence has been presented that claims to support on version or another of the chemtrail theory, and most of it has clearly been shown to be false. I (and others) have debunked those claims of evidence.

If you take WITWATS, what EXACTLY is the subject it covers that is unsubstantiated, and not debunked? Can you state it in a sentence or two? Then can you say what it would take to "debunk" that subject?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

The film is the subject. That's what I debunked. It implies nothing more.

I think you are getting a little caught up in semantics. What's important here is that a lot of evidence has been presented that claims to support on version or another of the chemtrail theory, and most of it has clearly been shown to be false. I (and others) have debunked those claims of evidence.

If you take WITWATS, what EXACTLY is the subject it covers that is unsubstantiated, and not debunked? Can you state it in a sentence or two? Then can you say what it would take to "debunk" that subject?

The title itself. Spraying is unsubstantiated. You should have just avoided generalizing it... since its not specific. An example of a specific title appropriate of the word "debunking" would be 598/602 claims of WITWATS debunked.

 

[George B]

Here's a recently published detailed analysis of stratospheric aerosols that basically rules out anthropogenic sources for any of the increase in background stratospheric aerosols.

35 years of stratospheric aerosol measurements at Garmisch-Partenkirchen: from Fuego to Eyjafjallajokull, and beyond




They've identified volcanoes as the sole source of background aerosols. Stick a fork in it, George... it's done.

1) Hmmmm . . . I see . . . so they don't think the aerosols released in the troposphere can account for the increase of aerosols found in the 2000s . . . did they mention the possibility of direct injection of aerosols into the stratosphere by people . . . ??

2)They concluded it was from previously missed volcanoes partially through a process of elimination and some satellite imaging, etc. . . . can they fingerprint the SO2 found in the stratosphere? Can they eliminate geoengineering from consideration for a percentage of the increase . . .???

No positive trend in background aerosol can be resolved
over a period as long as that observed by lidar at Mauna Loa or Boulder. This suggests
being careful with invoking Asian air pollution as the main source as found in the literature.
Rather an impact of previously missed volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric
aerosol must be taken into consideration.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/23135/2012/acpd-12-23135-2012.pdf

3) Hmmmm . . . sole source . . . ?? "Rather an impact of previously missed volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol must be taken into consideration. It is far from done . . . it is still cooking . . .

 

[George B]

Hey SDB...READ THE DAMN PAPER! It's about aerosols in the stratosphere and they did not detect aerosols from coal burning in Asia in the stratosphere. We are looking in the right places because there have been numerous studies on dust/particulate/aerosol transport from Asia and so we know aerosols from Asia have gone somewhere... IN THE TROPOSPHERE, and the particulates have been found to be deposited in North America, primarily the west coast. What the paper shows is the aerosols from Asia, or any other non-volcanic source, are just not making their way into the STRATOSPHERE in any detectable quantity.

Even more reason to investigate unknown and so far unrecognized sources for stratospheric aerosols . . . wouldn't you say . . . ??

 

[solrey]

And the rest of the story is they analyzed a variety of atmospheric data from different locations and identified volcanoes as the source of background aerosols while defining the transport mechanisms and pinpointing two different volcanoes as examples. This paper leaves no doubt as to the source of stratospheric aerosols, George...none.


OK, SDB, then show some respect and read the sources that somebody else has taken the time to find, read and comprehend thoroughly enough to make an informed comment about.

I'm off this merry-go-round... buhbye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGQZXA54gjU

 

[George B]

And the rest of the story is they analyzed a variety of atmospheric data from different locations and identified volcanoes as the source of background aerosols while defining the transport mechanisms and pinpointing two different volcanoes as examples. This paper leaves no doubt as to the source of stratospheric aerosols, George...none.


OK, SDB, then show some respect and read the sources that somebody else has taken the time to find, read and comprehend thoroughly enough to make an informed comment about.

I'm off this merry-go-round... buhbye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGQZXA54gjU

Whether they made additional observations or not . . . THEY said the following . . . "must be taken into consideration."
That does not sound to me like an unequivocal statement of absolute certainty they accounted for all the stratospheric aerosols . . . as you have stated . . . sorry . . .

No positive trend in background aerosol can be resolved
over a period as long as that observed by lidar at Mauna Loa or Boulder. This suggests
being careful with invoking Asian air pollution as the main source as found in the literature.
Rather an impact of previously missed volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric
aerosol must be taken into consideration.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/23135/2012/acpd-12-23135-2012.pdf

 

[solrey]

Whether they made additional observations or not . . . THEY said the following . . . "must be taken into consideration."
That does not sound to me like an unequivocal statement of absolute certainty they accounted for all the stratospheric aerosols . . . as you have stated . . . sorry . . .

You are the King of Cherry Pickin' George.

For the last time.

That one little line, from the abstract at the very beginning of a research paper nearly 60 pages long mind you, when taken in full context was just describing their line of reasoning and motivation for doing the study. They even go on to mention a key observation in that regard, from the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokullin (April 2010), in the very next sentence. The data did not support aerosols from Asia because there was no long-term positive trend observed at Mauna Loa or Boulder, nor from other anthropogenic sources such as increased air traffic. So they reasoned that previously overlooked volcanic eruptions must be taken into consideration. It's not their conclusion, it was their starting point. So they took that idea into consideration, as a starting point, looked into it in great detail from a 35 year history of data, and found that minor volcanic eruptions (especially in the tropics), which had not been considered previously, were indeed responsible for the "persistently variable" stratospheric background aerosols. That's the context from which that statement comes from. It does not in any way support your stubborn assertion that there is an unaccounted for increase in stratospheric background aerosols.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

So please humor me . . .

For yet another 30 pages?

No, thanks.

 

[George B]

You are the King of Cherry Pickin' George.

For the last time.

That one little line, from the abstract at the very beginning of a research paper nearly 60 pages long mind you, when taken in full context was just describing their line of reasoning and motivation for doing the study. They even go on to mention a key observation in that regard, from the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokullin (April 2010), in the very next sentence. The data did not support aerosols from Asia because there was no long-term positive trend observed at Mauna Loa or Boulder, nor from other anthropogenic sources such as increased air traffic. So they reasoned that previously overlooked volcanic eruptions must be taken into consideration. It's not their conclusion, it was their starting point. So they took that idea into consideration, as a starting point, looked into it in great detail from a 35 year history of data, and found that minor volcanic eruptions (especially in the tropics), which had not been considered previously, were indeed responsible for the "persistently variable" stratospheric background aerosols. That's the context from which that statement comes from. It does not in any way support your stubborn assertion that there is an unaccounted for increase in stratospheric background aerosols.

Hmmm . . . please highlight for me so I can understand where it concludes that they have accounted for all the stratospheric aerosols . . . and thus eliminate the possibility that a geoengineering program could exist . . .

5 Discussion andconclusions
The long background period after the end of thePinatubo phase and recent moderate
10 eruptions yield some insight into the processesmaintaining the stratospheric aerosol
layer. Tropospheric air pollution of bothnatural and anthropogenic origin can yield a
minor contribution. Upward injection oftropospheric air into the stratosphere is most
commonly achieved via deep convection or, at alevel of several per cent, in the outflow
of warm conveyor belts (WCBs; Stohl, 2001;Wernli and Bourqui, 2002; Sprenger and
15 Wernli, 2003). Deep pyro-convection has beenidentified to yield occasional contribution
slightly exceeding the 1997–2006 background(Sect. 3.3), the WCB mechanism
seems to be more important for trace gases(Stohl and Trickl, 1999; Trickl et al., 2003)
than for aerosols due to washout. Anotherpossibility could be cross-tropopause transport
following volcanic eruptions occurring directlyin favourable regions in the vicinity of
20 the jet stream, at least for smallcontributions to the lower-stratospheric aerosol budget.
The positive trend in stratospheric aerosolload observed over Mauna Loa and Boulder
(Hofmann et al., 2009) starting as early as in1998 is not visible in our data for such
a long period of time and rather uncertainsince the period with the lowest backscatter
coefficients ended too early in autumn 2006. After majorvolcanic eruptions at low
25 latitudes the maximum at our mid-latitude siteoccurs typically within half a year after
the beginning of the eruption. Thus, one wouldexpect an increase rather early. At least
the next volcanic period, starting towards theend of 2006, makes any meaningful trend
excluded. For the mid-latitude volcanoes thetropopause is lower and eruptions can
reach the tropopause region much easier.However, these contributions are difficult to
resolve unless a plume passes our site on itsfirst round trip on the Northern Hemisphere.
Our 5 trend analysis is limited to two years and, thus,insufficient for deriving a
clear message. In any case, Martinsson et al.(2005) found a pronounced increase of
sulphur-containing particles above thetropopause for CARIBIC (Civil Aircraft for Regular
Investigation of the Atmosphere on anInstrument Container) flights during the
period 1999–2002, i.e., when the stratosphericbackground was the lowest. This points
10 to the presence of particles from volcaniceruptions.

In this context the Eyjafjallaj ¨ okulleruption was ideal for estimating an impact of a
minor event on the lower stratosphere becauseof its proximity. We could verify pronounced
contributions around 3km on all four days, 18,19, 20 and 23 April. Our analysis
yields advection of volcanic aerosol in thelower stratosphere on the first two measurement days, p
ossibly also on thethird, but in this case mixed with Asian dust. The
reported maximum eruption altitudes between 8and 9.3 km were, indeed, close to and
sometimes above the tropopause level. Risingfarther would require dynamical lifting
or absorption of solar radiation by theparticles (De Laat et al., 2012). The backscatter
coefficients within the first 2 km above the tropopauseexceed the stratospheric back20
ground by a factor of three to four.

Several minor eruption reaching altitudesaround 10km occurred in Kamchatka and
on the Kuril Islands in late 2009 and early2010. However, their impact could not be
verified. The forward trajectories calculatedfor these eruptions do not reveal direct
transport to Europe, the air masses obviouslystaying in regions around the volcanic
25 sources for an extended period of time. Thus,significant vertically confined aerosol
structures are less likely to have survived ifEurope was eventually reached.
Acknowledgements.The authors thank the late R. Reiter, W. Seiler and H. P. Schmid fortheir
support along this longmeasurements series. They remind of the important role of W. Carnuth
for the lidar work at IFU, who built andapplied the first version of the big aerosol and other lidar systems. P
.Keckhut provided temperature calculations with the MIMOSA model for the
December-2006 episode, andM. Sprenger the daily forecast of stratospheric air intrusions. N.
Kristiansen and S. Eckhardtmade available the FLEXPART model run. This work was funded
by the German FederalMinistry of Education and Research within the German Lidar Network
5 and the European Union within theEuropean Aerosol Research Lidar Network (EARLINET)
and EARLINET-ASOS, and hascontributed to the Network of Atmospheric Composition
Change (NDACC).
pages 23160 through 23163
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/23135/2012/acpd-12-23135-2012.pdf

 

[George B]

Seems to me there is no real actual way to measure the amount of volcanic derived aerosols, ash and other particulates, the amount of SO2 etc. released into the troposphere or injected into the stratosphere over the last 35 years . . . all is based on historical data with many holes . . . the biggest being not knowing the concluded just discovered volcanoes are now the source of the variable back scatter and the temporary but much announced increase of aerosols in the 2000s . . . sounds like informed speculation to me . . . wait a few months there will be more speculation based on the process of elimination . . . and the speculation will not include forbidden possibilities aka an ongoing geoengineering program . . .

 

[Jay Reynolds]

George, its over dude........the king of the sun has taken you to the cleaners.

 

[George B]

George, its over dude........the king of the sun has taken you to the cleaners.

Hardley . . . his conclusions and interpretation of the cited paper is incorrect . . . there is no statement of the absolute exclusivity of aerosol sources . . . show me the quote if such a statement exists . . .

 

[JFDee]

So we need to test deposits then (ice cores, varves), not the stratosphere right?

Why should we need to test anything if there is no indication, no evidence, of anything sinister going on?

What was your starting point again?
"Flying in loops seems suspicious"

Why not get to the bottom of this first?

 

[Trailspotter]

Why should we need to test anything if there is no indication, no evidence, of anything sinister going on?

Chemtrail proponents want to involve us in their favourite game - looking for a black cat in a pitch dark room. They suspect that the cat most likely is not there, but they nevertheless clap the hands all the time and cry "here it is".

 

[George B]

If an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP) exists the following are part of the assumptions . . .

1) The only rational motive for a world wide program is to mitigate global warming . . . all other missions would IMO be local or regional in scope . . .


2) Based on the research available to the public . . . the injection into the stratosphere and/or high troposphere of reflective aerosols is the only logical method to mitigate global warming . . .


3) The most talked about and researched substance proposed for injection are sulfur compounds . . . using volcanic mediated climatic cooling as a model . . .


4) Multiple proposals to inject sulfur compounds have been computer modeled and cost analysis accomplished . . .


5) Most proposals recommend aircraft delivery as the most expedient, effective and efficient . . .


6) If my assumptions are correct . . . the questions remain . . . did someone begin ICAAIP . . . when did they start injections. . . are the injections ongoing and continual in pattern (altitude, routes, timing,amount, frequency, and concentration)?


7) What potential evidence would be expected to be discovered that proves a program was initiated and/or is still ongoing . . . ??


8) Potential Evidence:


a. If the objective was to demonstrate capability . . . no residual evidence may exist, except for testimony from the people involved.


b. If full implementation was attempted but was found ineffective and abandoned . . . a spike of sulfur compounds might be found in environmental reservoirs such as Ice Cores, Tree Rings, biomass (but how to fingerprint the sulfur by source?), stratospheric measurements and related recorded environmental data and of course testimony of individuals involved . . . plus logistical tails such as sulfur supplies, transportation, aircraft modification, etc.


c. If the program is still ongoing same as in (b) above . . . plus if effective some modification (even if minor) of the expected rate or magnitude of global warming . . .


9) The question remains is there any evidence available other than historical motive, capability, and research . . .?


Answer: So far no definitive evidence exists from (8) above . . . except for minor variations in stratospheric particulate concentration and a suspected rate reduction in global warming in the 2000s . . . the question remains IMO is this variation totally understood and accounted for by source (to include known anthropomorphic sources) or is there a component of geoengineering . . . Question: if there is a geoengineering component how does one prove it????


Answer: Since fingerprinting of stratospheric sulfur compounds is unlikely . . . and the one tool that may have accomplished this action was destroyed on launch in 2011 and not likely to be relaunched until 2015 . . . Thus, we may not know for several years to come . . .


--------


(The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor)-the one instrument that could have answered many of the needed answers about aerosols possible origins and climatic effects was a Raytheon project . . . and . . . was lost by a failed launch . . .
---------

Raytheon's Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor


Raytheon's Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) will measure aerosols in Earth's atmosphere to provide scientists and policy makers a better understanding of how those aerosols affect global climate change.


"The Glory Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor can distinguish between various types of aerosols and reveal the different role each plays in either warming or cooling our planet," said Bill Hart, vice president, Space Systems. "Since black carbon aerosols generally contribute to warming, and sulfate aerosols to cooling, the concentrations of these aerosols and others must be determined to ensure accurate climate modeling."


Both natural and man-made aerosols are important constituents of the atmosphere that affect global temperature. Yet they remain poorly quantified and, according to NASA scientists, represent the largest uncertainty regarding climate change.




http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gloryaps/


On 4 March 2011, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) was lost as a consequence of the failed launch of the Glory Mission. On 6 March 2011, Dr. Michael Freilich, Director of the Earth Science Division, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, directed the Glory APS Science Team to perform a comprehensive study intended to develop and evaluate the science rationale for an APS reflight.
http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/

 

[Mick West]

2) Based on the research available to the public . . . the injection into the stratosphere and/or high troposphere of reflective aerosols is the only logical method to mitigate global warming . . .

No it's not.

 

[George B]

No it's not.

I should have said it is the most popular, researched, modeled and discussed method aside from greenhouse gas reduction . . .

However, the premise of the Post above was . . .

"If an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP) exists the following are part of the assumptions . . ."

So my statement was not totally inaccurate . . .

 

[Mick West]

I should have said it is the most popular, researched, modeled and discussed method aside from greenhouse gas reduction . . .

However, the premise of the Post above was . . .

"If an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP) exists the following are part of the assumptions . . ."

So my statement was not totally inaccurate . . .

It is if you say "reflective aerosols".

I'd also disagree with it being the "most popular". How are you measuring that?

But the sum total of your post is again zero. You're just saying again, that in your opinion it's likely they are doing it in secret without anyone noticing, and there's likely no evidence they are doing it.

 

[George B]

It is if you say "reflective aerosols".

I'd also disagree with it being the "most popular". How are you measuring that?

But the sum total of your post is again zero. You're just saying again, that in your opinion it's likely they are doing it in secret without anyone noticing, and there's likely no evidence they are doing it.

IMO it is the most popular based on my survey of the research and literature as well as from polls conducted at symposium and by I believe The Scientific American . . .

Pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, as volcanoes do, is the most well established way to block the sun. Other proposals call for brightening clouds over the oceans by lofting sea salt into the atmosphere and building a sunscreen in space.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=geoengineering-how-to-cool-earth

 

[George B]

You're just saying again, that in your opinion it's likely they are doing it in secret without anyone noticing, and there's likely no evidence they are doing it.

1) No, I have made no statement regarding the probability of the existence of ongoing geoengineering in the above Post . . .
2) I have concluded there is no definitive evidence capable of proving such a program exists and further state there is not likely to be evidence based on the present state of available technical capability and data . . . and I further will state there is not likely to be such evidence for some time . . .

 

[Mick West]

1) No, I have made no statement regarding the probability of the existence of ongoing geoengineering in the above Post . . .
2) I have concluded there is no definitive evidence capable of proving such a program exists and further state there is not likely to be evidence based on the present state of available technical capability and data . . . and I further will state there is not likely to be such evidence for some time . . .

Yet you've previously stated you think it's 30% likely that it's going on. Rather strong for something with no evidence.

 

[George B]

Yet you've previously stated you think it's 30% likely that it's going on. Rather strong for something with no evidence.

I have consistently stated . . . I base my position on primarily history, capability, motive, and personality of the Congressional Military Industrial Complex . . . and IMO no clear evidence that geoengineering cannot be ongoing . . .

I will further state that the motives for geoengineering don't appear to be on the decline; however, effectiveness of and the cost effectiveness of sulfur injection has become much more questionable . . . via computer modeling or perhaps new information from trials???

 

[Trailspotter]

If an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program (ICAAIP) exists the following are part of the assumptions . . .

It is a very big IF.

8) Potential Evidence:

b. If full implementation was attempted but was found ineffective and abandoned . . . a spike of sulfur compounds might be found in environmental reservoirs . . .

There would be no spike unless the attempt produced a sharp increase of sulfate concentration in atmosphere comparable with major volcanic eruptions.

 

[George B]

It is a very big IF.



There would be no spike unless the attempt produced a sharp increase of sulfate concentration in atmosphere comparable with major volcanic eruptions.

A recognizable spike . . . probably in the range of 8 Tg plus or minus . . . 1 Tg showed no spike . . . so unless one can ID sources of SO2 in the Ice Core I agree . . . some estimates of needed gross amounts to negate the expected increase in greenhouse gasses is around 5 Tg . . . this amount might show a spike . . .

 

[Spongebob]

Might? If? But? unless? No clear evidence? Based on? Most popular? Proposals? Potential evidence? We may not know? Assumptions . . .

It took 9 pages for George to get his obfuscation back on track?

(ICAAIP) exists ?? It does again, unfortunately...

30 more pages or less? Best guess before the well deserved garbage bin (yet again)

 

[George B]

Might? If? But? unless? No clear evidence? Based on? Most popular? Proposals? Potential evidence? We may not know? Assumptions . . .

It took 9 pages for George to get his obfuscation back on track?

(ICAAIP) exists ?? It does again, unfortunately...

30 more pages or less? Best guess before the well deserved garbage bin (yet again)

It is so nice to know I have fans . . . people who hang on my every word . . . special . . .

 

[Spongebob]

It is nice to know I have fans . . . people who hang on my every word . . .

"Key Words" (just from this page) You keep getting away with it, and you deserve full credit, I tip my hat (honestly).

I have hardly ever seen anyone on any other forum, wasting so much time and energy.

The only comparable obfuscatory technician I can recall would be "jammonius" over on the JREFforum? He claims to be a lawyer?
He always loses the discussion - but that`s not the point really is it?