It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Flannery proposes 'global dimming' to save planet

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:44 PM
While doing my quick research online, I noticed that sulphur (or sulfur) is yellow in color, does ignite as fire and that it is referred to as brimstone. If ‘global dimming’ is to be implemented with sulphur, I cannot imagine the ‘fire and brimstone’ scenario raining down from the skies per the Revelations of Biblical proportion.

Anyway, after viewing a member’s post about ‘Acid Rain’ and reading elsewhere about how ‘native people’ experienced rain of yellow color, ‘Yellow Rain’ came to my mind. I found a case study on ‘Yellow Rain’ by the US Dept of State. The reports alleged biological weapons were released as clouds mostly the color of yellow by aircrafts. This agent was later found to be mycotoxins (which are produced by fungi and poisonous to humans and animals).

If ‘Yellow Rain’ remains unknown, I don’t know what consequences to expect from this controversial climate modification technique the professor is proposing of spraying sulphur into the atmosphere by adding this substance into the jet fuel!

What I don’t like about this proposal is it urgent nature to take emergency measures to resolve this ‘global warming’ issue. I feel this is yet another fear-mongering, scare tactic to poison the very air we breathe (ever so slowly).

[edit on 2008-5-19 by pikypiky]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by General Izer

General....a volcano's output CAN circle the globe.....but, you are talking about MILLIONS of cubic miles of output, from a naturally occuring volcanic output....Billions of pounds of ash and debris.....BILLIONS!!

Do the many airplanes would be needed to 'spray' billions of pounds????

See where logic interferes with the hysteria?

It's not about hysteria as I could care less what they put in the atmosphere.

I completely understand your logic but it's not me that put out an article on dimming the planet using sulfur. It was a scientist.

I think there are other variables in the argument though. There are other delivery systems that could be used, for instance. Also, it may not be necessary to cover ever square inch of atmosphere to gain the desired effect.

The thing with the contrail side of the argument is that by their own admission they say they've never seen a chemtrail. If a chemtrail has never been seen then how would one know when they saw one? How could anyone on either side of the argument say that a contrail does or does not contain chemicals?

Since none of us can follow these jets and take immediate samples of their 'trail' then we have to go on visual evidence. The visual evidence, however, can never fully be proof of chemtrail or contrail. The debate can never be laid to rest without additional information that is not available to us.

I was merely putting out another possible motive in the possibility of chemtrail spraying. I understand that when either side says anything in the absolute then they are no longer dealing with the logic of the situation. And that goes for both sides. "That is NOT a chemtrail" or "That IS a chemtrail" are merely opinions based on available evidence.

I also realize that my post spoke in absolute terms. But I'll readily admit it's not meant to be absolute. Are others ready to admit they don't have enough information to make absolute conclusions on this subject?

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM
Pollution already blocks sunlight! So your going to ADD MORE pollution to the atmosphere?

Doesn't matter what you put into the atmosphere, if it isn't there naturally and it's not SUPPOSE to be there, it's POLLUTION!

Blocking the sunlight or "dimming" it won't work!

From OP's article

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.

"The consequences of doing that are unknown."

Well, some of these risks I think I can figure out, besides the possibility of acid rain, just his "dimming" the planet theory!

We get most of the oxygen on this planet from plants that use sunlight in photosynthesis to create O2 out of CO2,

So you will be diminishing the ability of plants to turn the CO2 into O2 by "dimming the planet, or rather blocking sunlight, thereby allowing higher concentrations of CO2 to build up while diminishing the O2 levels of the planet! Higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 = greenhouse gas effect!

You just ADDED to the problem!

"Dimming or blocking the sun will make it worse!

IF the problem is just the sun getting hotter and not the CO2 green house effect, it might help somewhat. But what happens if the sun starts to cool down a little? How are you going to get this sunlight "dimming" substance, pollution, out of the atmosphere?

Doesn't sound like a well thought out "THEORY" or PLAN to me!

Sounds ridiculous!

[edit on 5/19/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link looks like the good doctor neither knows his science nor understands past upper atmospheric work

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 06:08 PM
They have already been covering the Sun with trails for years now this is nothing new.

What is happening is they are also dumping a lot of other crap that is harming not only us but the animals, insects, trees/plants, soils, water and air....did I forget anything.

I go by what the aliens tell me and they told me over 50 yrs. ago plant ten fold so now I would believe it would be in mass. I don't see it happening however I did see Prince Charles mentioning 30 mil for trees if I heard it right. (if it ever happens.)

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:23 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Here's a further link that explains how they might produce sulphur dioxide from additives to jet fuel at specific altitudes.

It's strange how we are trying to produce fuels that produce less sulphur dioxide and then want to pump it into the environment trying to prevent nature from taking it's course. Are we as a species sane? Don't answer that!

[edit on 19-5-2008 by ANTHONY33]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by primamateria

How about pumping out the greenhouse gases by using a giant filtration system instead of pumping in sulphur to solve the same problem. Personally I don't want my planet smelling like sulphur. That's pretty ridiculous!

This text from
explains this proposed geoengineering concept of inputing sulphur into the atmosphere in more detail.

Atmospheric Sun Screens.
Another geoengineering idea is to mimic the natural cooling effects of volcanic eruptions that release massive amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. SO2 eventually turns into highly reflective solid particles that bounce solar radiation back into space.

There is evidence that adding SO2 to the atmosphere cools the climate. [See Figure II.] The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 caused 1816 to be labeled the "year without summer." In 1991, the Philippines' Mount Pinatubo spewed such huge amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere that the average global temperature dropped 0.5°C for almost two years. This decrease is the same amount of climate warming experienced over the last 100 years.

Gregory Benford has proposed a variation on this idea, Science magazine reports. He suggests increasing the planet's reflectivity by putting tiny particles of silicon dioxide (basically, kitty litter) into the stratosphere. "...[S]ilicon chemically inert, cheap...and readily crushable to the size we want," says Benford. He suggests testing the idea over the Arctic, where atmospheric circulation patterns would confine the particles to the polar region.

Other proposals to reduce the solar radiation reaching the Earth include putting a large mirror or shade into orbit between the Sun and the Earth, or placing trillions of small transparent sheets in orbit to reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth's surface by 2 percent (sufficient to offset warming even with a doubling of CO2), or laying a reflective film over much of the planet's deserts.

So basically we would be creating a darker planet and a darker sky. But what would the effects be on tree and plantlife? If trees and plants start withering because of less sunlight for whatever reason, you're right back where you began. And now you have untold cubic miles of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere with what way to extract it? Filtering it out?

It makes no sense considering we currently already have the technology that can filter out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Why not bypass the entire sulphur dioxide process and simply start at the end by filtering this stuff out of the air from the start? There are many ways it could be done. One concept is using nano-engineered membranes that filter out the carbon. There are others.


posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:40 PM

this thread from 2003 covers all the arguments you are making.
you can see i am aware of what supersaturation is, etc.
if you visit the thread, you will also see that chemtrails were something i noticed, and not something i read about.
i used to suntan for hours when i was a teenager in the 1980's. i would watch the jets flying over head, and they NEVER left contrails that spread out for hours and hours afterward. the longest lived would last about a half hour, and then would dissipate.

i don't need a meteorological lesson to remember what i've seen all my life, and what i haven't seen.

[edit on 19-5-2008 by billybob]

posted on May, 19 2008 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by billybob

'A teenager in the 1980s'....!!!


Say no more, you don't need to learn about meteorology, since you're already such an expert....all of the adults who have actual knowledge, just a bunch of stupid old geezers, eh?

Yup, laying there and watching jets fly over....did you have weather balloons as well? Did you read any of the high-level prog charts?

Did you lay out all year? Every month of the year?? Did you take detailed notes....dates, times, your latitude on Earth...local temp, pressure????


posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:01 AM
I never saw contrails (chemtrails) up until 5 years ago, this was in the city too btw, also out on the coast. This year alone I have seen more that my entire life of 30+ years.

Weedwacker is so determined to not give ANY credit to chemtrails, and is on EVERY thread trying to debunk the proof of the photos all you great people at ATS send in on a now daily basis.

Oh yeah, one more thing, ANYONE can be ANYTHING on the net. I don't believe anyone that says they are this or that, unless I know them on a real life basis....having said that I am the Flying Purple Spaghetti Monster.FEAR ME!

Love ALL


posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

did you read the thread? i provided the link to an in depth analysis by your superior, (howard roark, lol, the man in an ayn rand novel who was an architect that blew up his own tower, AHEM, 911, AHEM, roark a fella/hazmat), and the debate was exactly the same.
the venerable "bangin" knew what she was seeing. ie. something different in the skies.

old this.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by tankthinker
my opinion is that global warming doesnt exist but the climate is changing because of the coming event in 2012, so what i think is that this is a elitist plan to protect the earth from the event. They will still have their bunkers to hide in, but i would guess that they would want to preserve the earth as much as possible.

You have got to be joking! Now I know the skeptics are getting desperate. There's no warming by us but there is a change due to a conspiracy theory about the future linked to predictions made by Mayans thousands of years ago.....jesus christ what chance do we stand if people in positions of authority were to believe the same thing!

We are screwing up the planet. One third of all life on this planet has disappeared in the last 20 years or so. We have killed or eaten them. We are destroying the land, we are destroying the air, we are the cause of the melting of all ice worldwide. All "theories" about natural events have been thorougly investigated and proved to be NOT the cause this time. Every prediction about the future has to be adjusted ie timescales shortened and events worsened. Anybody with any scientific background should find that fact alone terrifying.

We as guardians of the earth for future generations, our children and grandchildren, have the responsibility of doing something. There are far far too many people who just cannot stand the thought of having to severely curtail their wasteful lifestyles. It terrifies them. You only have to watch a "reality" TV show with all these shallow people with shallow lives to see how utterly pathetic some people cling to material things, the vast majority of which will have to go. You think the credit crunch is bad PAH, just wait for the food price has started.

We have to stop ALL activity that adds to the problem NOW. Or prepare for a world far different from todays.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:58 AM
wacker, I have a friend who has been a pilot for the last 20 years or so and he also is incredibly sceptical of the concept of chemtrails. He maintains this scepticism despite the increasing amount of photos showing chemicals being emitted from planes that sit in the atmosphere for hours - longer than even sky writers can get their smoke to stay in the sky!

My point is that when I mentioned ages ago the concept of additives being put in fuel he scoffed at the idea much as you are, however here we have an established climate scientist saying exactly the same thing.

To emphasize my point, Tim Flannery is suggesting doing something that chemtrail people have already been talking about for the last 5 - 7 years! Therefore I am hypothosizing that for Tim Flannery to say this, he must be basing it upon some body of research somemwhere that has already tested the fuel additive concept - of which chemtrails are a result and is what people are seeing in the sky after planes have flown.

[edit on 2008-5-20 by primamateria]

[edit on 2008-5-20 by primamateria]

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:21 AM

Can you tell the difference between premium and regular petrol when driving your car?

Or BP or Caltex fuels?


But can fuelers who weigh fuel and check for inconsistencies tell the diferance between A-1, and Jet B?

You bet.

[edit on 20/5/2008 by C0bzz]

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by billybob

Only the 777 has no provisions for anything in the cabin to reach the fuel tanks or anything that they can spray. This was NOT a one off plane, it was a 777-240LR, now flying with PIA, PAKISTANI INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES. The ONLY time aircraft are flying like that is when they're a part of a flight test program.

[edit on 20/5/2008 by C0bzz]

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:14 AM
Well can we get any jet fuelers to comment on whether at any point they have picked up on differences in jet fuels or whether they have heard anything about additives?

My point (that you supported) was that pilots may not be able to tell if any additives have been mixed into the jet fuel and hence we can't rule out the 'jet fuel additive' possibility on their say so alone.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow could NOT have seen contrails before five years ago?!? You just shot any cred you had in the foot....because YOU never saw them, then anyone else who did is lying/or deranged?

AND, you then attack me....thin ice, there buddy!

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:33 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

Folks, as COBzz stated....that billybob photo was not a purported 'chem sprayer'

Those tanks you see are BALLAST...all of the equipment is in place to measure and record the performance as part of the FLIGHT TESTING of airplanes.

See....this is what happens, perfectly harmless and unrelated pictures are mis-interpreted, in the ever desperate attempt of 'chemtrail' believers to make something out of nothing...

AND...for the OP, glad you have a friend who is a pilot! Perhaps he can read what others here have written and confirm that we aren't...ahem ...'blowing smoke'! (small joke)

About Tim Flannerey....he 'proposed' the possibility of fuel additives...but it does not necessarily follow that any 'research' has been done in that arena.....he is simply advocating the beginnings of studies.

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by primamateria

Finally....cropdusters and helicoptors???? Show me one helicoptor that will operate at 35,000 feet and I will turn in my ATS membership, and give you all of my points!!!

Hmmmmmmm :

Aerospatiale'schief test pilot Jean Boulet sets an absolute world altitude record (still unbroken) of 12,442 m (40,810 ft). When he begins descent and reduces pitch on his SA315B Lama, the engine quits at -62 C (-80 F) outside air temperature. There is no way to restart: to reduce weight, the Lama carries neither battery nor engine starter. Boulet's return to earth becomes the longest autorotation in helicopter history.


I'm rich I'm filthy stinking rich!

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 06:36 PM
CONCORDE, the supersonic airliner, may be destroying the ozone layer far faster than anyone anticipated, by leaving a hitherto unnoticed fog of sulphuric acid in its wake. Worse still, subsonic aircraft are probably doing the same thing, adding an unexpected threat to both stratospheric ozone and climatic stability.

The findings are worrying for both atmospheric chemists and aircraft engineers. "For twenty years, we have asked engineers to design engines that minimise production of nitrogen oxides. We regarded them as the main hazard from aircraft emissions," says David Fahey of the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. "Now it seems aerosols of sulphur particles may be equally important."

Three years ago Fahey sent a research plane to chase Concorde as it flew high over the ocean near New Zealand, sampling exhaust gases in Concorde's slipstream 10 minutes after the supersonic airliner had passed. He discovered much more sulphuric acid, in the form of a very fine aerosol, than expected. And, using a model of atmospheric chemistry developed by fellow researcher Bernd Kärcher of the University of Munich, Fahey has shown how Concorde's exhaust produces so many particles.

Aircraft fuel contains trace impurities, including sulphur. Previously, researchers had imagined that most of the sulphur that burns in aircraft engines forms sulphur dioxide. Once in the atmosphere, this would be gradually converted to sulphuric acid and condense onto particles in the air, with little effect on vital stratospheric chemical processes.

But Fahey's research has shown that, in Concorde at least, the burnt sulphur emerges from the exhaust pipe as sulphur trioxide. This form converts much more rapidly to sulphuric acid. And when there is a dearth of particles in the atmosphere on which to condense, the acid creates a fog of tiny new particles.

The number of particles present in the stratosphere is a vital factor in ozone loss because it is on the surface of these particles that chlorine pollutants destroy ozone. "A fleet of 500 supersonic aircraft like Concorde could double the surface area of tiny particles present in the stratosphere. That would have a direct effect on stratospheric ozone," says Fahey, whose research is reported in the latest issue of Geophysical Research Letters (vol 24, p 389).

The handful of Concordes flying today may not matter a lot, he says. But large subsonic aircraft on long-haul flights also spend a lot of their time in the stratosphere. "We haven't done the measurements yet, but we see no reason why their emissions should be very different from Concorde," says Fahey. With subsonic aircraft most frequently intruding into the stratosphere on Arctic routes, this raises the prospect that they could contribute to the ozone holes that have emerged over the Arctic during the 1990s.

Fahey believes that aircraft could also have a big impact on the more complex chemistry at lower altitude, in the troposphere, where subsonic aircraft fly most of the time. Here, the aerosols are likely to encourage the formation of cirrus clouds, which could warm the global climate.

"Controlling aerosol formation in aircraft plumes may be required to minimise ozone loss and climate change," says Kärcher. That may bring calls for the production of jet fuel with a lower sulphur content, and for a redesign of aircraft engines to reduce production of sulphur trioxide.

From issue 2069 of New Scientist magazine, 15 February 1997, page 18

doesnt this make the idea of adding sulphur seam even more crazy !
it also shows to me what little the scientists know of the upper atmosphere !

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in