It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

page: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
ETC Group


ETC Group publishes a world map of geoengineering -- the large-scale manipulation of earth or climate systems. While there is no complete record of the scores of weather and climate control projects in dozens of countries, this map is the first attempt to document the expanding scope of research and experimentation. Almost 300 geoengineering projects/experiments are represented on the map belonging to 10 different types of climate-altering technologies.


Geoengineering World Map PDF

Geoengineering: A Half Century of Earth System Experimentation

PART 2: A Half Century of Earth System Experimentation


--------------------


IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering


--------------------

Fixed Link from previous post

Large-Scale Intentional Interventions
into the Climate System?



edit on 6-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

Why the ETC group map is rubbish

in précis -

contradictory info (increased AND decreased precipitation in some places
geo-engineering conferences listed as "activity"
algae-and fish-farming listed as "ocean fertilization" and "to capture CO2"
biochar listed as geoengineering when it is used for soil fertility

and so on.....



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Interesting article

Sulfuric Acid from Aviation and Ship Tracks may be higher today than Geoengineering SRM would require in 2020

H2SO4 (SULFURIC ACID) FROM AVIATION MAY BE HIGHER TODAY THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A GEOENGINEERING REGIME IN 2020



Apparently some jet exhaust has sulfuric acid.

First direct sulfuric acid detection in the exhaust plume of a jet aircraft in flight


Abstract. Sulfuric acid (SA) was for the first time directly detected in the exhaust plume of a jet aircraft in flight. The measurements were made by a novel aircraft-based VACA (Volatile Aerosol Component Analyzer) instrument of MPI-K Heidelberg while the research aircraft Falcon was chasing another research aircraft ATrAS. The VACA measures the total SA in the gas and in volatile submicron aerosol particles. During the chase the engines of the ATrAS alternatively burned sulfur-poor and sulfur-rich fuel. In the sulfur-rich plume very marked enhancements of total SA were observed of up to 1300 pptv



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67
that's just plain weird - all jet exhaust contains sulphates it is pretty much axiomatic that there is sulphuric acid if there is any liquid water in the exhaust - SO2 --> H2SO4 is a pretty normal atmospheric reaction in the presence of water and oxygen.

See SO2 here:



ETA:

The amount of sulphur in aviation fuel is quiet closely studied....so again - it is not actually a great surprise that it exists, and has done for decades!
edit on 6-7-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

No it isn't a surprise at all.

In fact it was suggested by Alvia Gaskill that altering the sulfur content of jet fuel could accomplish the goals of SRM

The original source is no longer available


Source

AEROSOL DISCUSSION BY ALVIA GASKILL
www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...

Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet
Option 2: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft
Option 3: Direct Injection of Sulfur Dioxide Gas Using High Altitude Jet Aircraft
Option 4: Direct Injection of Ammonium Sulfate Aerosol Using Dedicated Fleet of Jet Aircraft
Option 5: Running Commercial Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio
Option 6: Running Dedicated Fleet of Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio
Option 7: Running High Altitude Aircraft Jet Engines with Richer Fuel to Air Ratio

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prioritization of Sulfur/Soot Release Strategies
In the order in which they should be used.

1. Sulfur dioxide release using dedicated fleet or high altitude planes
2. Run engines rich on dedicated fleet or high altitude planes
3. Run engines rich on existing commercial fleet
4. Combination of rich fuel and high sulfur on commercial fleet
5. High sulfur fuel only on commercial fleet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Use of a dedicated fleet also frees up the planes to fly the most advantageous routes and times for release. As noted earlier, releases along the equator are more likely to become evenly distributed globally, while those at high latitudes tend to stay there. By not being locked into existing flight schedules, this release program will have much more flexibility.

The potential for civilian casualties is also greatly reduced, since the dedicated flights will carry no more than a dozen individuals vs. hundreds on commercial aircraft should a catastrophic failure result. Unlike the commercial fleet, these planes will not use high sulfur fuel, so any accidents would have to come from some other cause."



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

In fact it was suggested by Alvia Gaskill that altering the sulfur content of jet fuel could accomplish the goals of SRM


Indeed - that's another discussion that has been had here on ATS already - probably just increasing the amount of sulphur to the limit of 3000ppm would "do the job" - but it couldn't' be secret.



posted on Jul, 6 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Why couldn't it be kept secret?

If only private or military planes "dedicated fleet" used the sulfur rich fuel.

or

If a commercial airline were to contract with the government it might include a non-disclosure agreement.

Since reducing sulfur content in fuel has been done already.

Perhaps increasing the sulfur content in the fuel to the maximum allowable levels.

As long as the fuel still meets the limits it would not cause anyone to become alarmed.

EDIT:

The paper also included rich air to fuel ratio as another method. This wouldn't even require altering the fuel.

edit on 6-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: MagicWand67

Why the ETC group map is rubbish

in précis -

contradictory info (increased AND decreased precipitation in some places
geo-engineering conferences listed as "activity"
algae-and fish-farming listed as "ocean fertilization" and "to capture CO2"
biochar listed as geoengineering when it is used for soil fertility

and so on.....


It's not contradictory info and you know it. Decreased precipitation refers to hail suppression techniques. Increased precipitation refers to rain. 2 completely different cloud seeding techniques and purposes.

It's clearly listed what type of activity. It's posted right on the map. Multiple geoengineering conferences were listed.

Biochar is listed among techniques of CDR geoengineering. The map lists both CDR and SRM.

The concept of ocean fertilization is about algae growth for CDR. Again it's listed.

What's the dispute? Each item you mentioned is true and is written about as geoengineering proposals.

There no deception? It's all based on fact. The details are readily available to anyone who looks.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Here is a SRM field test


Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment

The Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment (E-PEACE) 2011 was a targeted aircraft campaign with embedded modeling studies, using the Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) Twin Otter aircraft and the research vessel Point Sur in July and August 2011 off the central coast of California, with a full payload of instruments to measure particle and cloud number, mass, composition, and water uptake distributions.

EPEACE used three emitted particle sources to separate particle-induced feedbacks from dynamical variability, namely

1) shipboard smoke-generated particles with 0.05–1-μm diameters (which produced tracks measured by satellite and had drop composition characteristic of organic smoke),

2) combustion particles from container ships with 0.05–0.2-μm diameters (which were measured in a variety of conditions with droplets containing both organic and sulfate components), and

3) aircraft-based milled salt particles with 3–5-μm diameters (which showed enhanced drizzle rates in some clouds).

The aircraft observations were consistent with past large-eddy simulations of deeper clouds in ship tracks and aerosol– cloud parcel modeling of cloud drop number and composition, providing quantitative constraints on aerosol effects on warm-cloud microphysics.

edit on 7-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
Interesting article

Sulfuric Acid from Aviation and Ship Tracks may be higher today than Geoengineering SRM would require in 2020

H2SO4 (SULFURIC ACID) FROM AVIATION MAY BE HIGHER TODAY THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A GEOENGINEERING REGIME IN 2020





That article isn't being entirely honest of course


“According to Keith’s calculations, if operations were begun in 2020, it would take 25,000 metric tons of sulfuric acid to cut global warming in half after one year. Once under way, the injection of sulfuric acid would proceed continuously. By 2040, 11 or so jets delivering roughly 250,000 metric tons of it each year, at an annual cost of $700 million, would be required to compensate for the increased warming caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide. By 2070, he estimates, the program would need to be injecting a bit more than a million tons per year using a fleet of a hundred aircraft.”


You can't really compare that to aircraft and ship emissions since he is talking about using modified aircraft flying at 65000ft



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
I wasn't aware that drizzle was a recognised proposal for SRM



a reply to: MagicWand67



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

I suppose you'd support the use of Nuclear weapons for geoengineering?

Attitudes like yours are disturbing to say the least.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy

I suppose you'd support the use of Nuclear weapons for geoengineering?

Attitudes like yours are disturbing to say the least.


I suppose you don't see much sunshine on those grey, drizzly days. Is that what you meant by solar radiation management?



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy


I don't mind answering some questions. But leave the cynicism and sarcasm out please.

You clearly don't understand this topic. Not sure why you're even commenting.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time or the desire to become a personal tutor to you.

You're going to have to ACTUALLY READ the material yourself.



edit on 7-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: mrthumpy


You clearly don't understand this topic. Not sure why you're even commenting.

I'm sorry but I don't have the time or the desire to become a personal tutor to you.

You're going to have to ACTUALLY READ the material yourself.



Are you sure YOU understand it? to me this looks like a study into the effects that aerosols have on cloud structure and properties to enable better climate modelling rather than field testing solar radiation management



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mrthumpy

There's quite a few different types of SRM.

The data gathered from this experiment applies mostly to cloud whitening schemes.

This isn't about "chemtrails". It's about solar radiation management.

If you read the SRM proposals you will see that nearly all of them involve the effects of aerosols on cloud structure.


EDIT:

Full illustrated E-PEACE pdf

Eastern Pacific Emitted Aerosol Cloud Experiment
edit on 7-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Revisiting this papers summary and conclusions


Source

Summary and Conclusions
Direct detection of total sulfuric acid (SA) has been achieved for the first time in the plume of a jet aircraft in flight. The measurements show the same SA signatures for the case when SA was injected directly into the exhaust jet and the case when sulfur was provided to the engine with the fuel. Evidence was obtained that part of the sulfur initially contained in the fuel experiences conversion to SA.

A strong correlation of SA with ACO2 and AT was observed. Our data indicate a lower limit for the efficiency e for
fuel-sulfur conversion to SA of 0.34 % inferred from the correlation with CO2 measurements. For a fuel-sulfur content of 22
ppmm, the SA abundance does not exceed background values.

Future measurements in aircraft plumes should include simultaneous measurements of gaseous SA and total SA, measurement of different engine types, fuel sulfur contents and atmospheric conditions as well as measurement at larger plume ages.

We hope to achieve fully quantitative measurements of total SA by using an advanced VACA instrument, performing further laboratory studies and in-flight calibrations


These details are important, IMO, it shows how we can dial in the correct amount of sulfur in fuel to achieve the same sulfuric acid content as if the SA was directly injected into the exhaust plume.


edit on 7-7-2014 by MagicWand67 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MagicWand67

This is a test that was done and did happen. As determined by the wording in the paper. Just so you know I do read them and comprehend them as well. But also note, there is a paper that exists describing it, so your concerns of being kept in the dark may not be fully warranted. But thanks for the information just the same.



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Your article really puts this whole issue into perspectives of weighing public health vs climate change and fuel costs.

Wow


Ultra-low sulfur jet fuel on the radar

The costs and benefits of introducing ultra-low sulfur fuel for aviation have been weighed up in a new study, and there are unexpected pros and cons. Modelling showed that desulfurising jet fuel would improve air quality, preventing between 1000 and 4000 deaths globally each year. It would cost the global aviation industry $1-4 billion (£0.63-2.5 billion) per year - ¢2-7 per gallon of jet fuel - which equates to an increase in the cost of jet fuel of around 2%.

But the study also pointed to climate downsides: desulfurising fuel would reduce the formation of cooling sulfate particles, which currently offset some global warming. 'Overall, desulfurising jet fuel would reduce aviation's impact on public health by perhaps a quarter, but may increase its climate impact by about a tenth,' notes lead author Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'



posted on Jul, 7 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Well it seems quite obvious, based on Aloysius' article, that we're keeping the sulfur content in jet fuel higher than it needs to be.

1: Because removing the sulfur is expensive

2: Because the sulfur is said to be beneficial to climate change issues



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join