It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
reply to post by Goethe
Yes it makes me very suspicious to see such powerful attempts to debunk this issue. With such fervor to make everyone think this is false....
Makes me think they have alot to lose if everyone wakes up and the truth is discovered.
Also makes me think we are hitting quite close to the truth to get them all so riled-up.
[edit on (5/7/10) by AllSeeingI]
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AllSeeingI
The effects of normal contrails on climate have been under study for a long time. Proposals of various means of mitigating "global warming", should the need arise, have also been on the table for a long time.
The paper you've linked does not prove anything. To the contrary, it is cautionary, pointing out the hazards of such a project. The purpose of the workshop was to:They are talking about ways to control such measures and to determine when and if they should be taken.
focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shapin geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.
Sometimes I wonder if people ever read the things they link.
BTW, I don't think you have to worry about the file "disappearing".
[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]
Originally posted by C-JEAN
Hi, AllSeeingI and all.
I have the 542 K file " GeoEng_Jan2709.pdf " if needed.
And, **small reflecting particles** are ONE of the "things" that are
in those chemtrails. . . B-)
Originally posted by virgthevoice
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
During my research on this topic and source article I am finding that my sources are being removed...
So I went to the CFR.org website and searched for the file : GeoEng_Jan2709.
and this is what I found!!!
PDF] Unilateral Geoengineering
Page 1. April 15, 2008 1 Unilateral Geoengineering
Non ... should be pulled. Page 2. April 15, 2008 2 ...
SHOULD BE PULLED?!
are we looking at a cover-up in the making?!
I have been rather unwillingly pulled into investigating these "theories" as my husband has found a wild array of videos on youtube, most of which seem pretty far fetched... this chemtrail thing is one of these theories.
Interestingly, the drama of the statements, above, can easily be deflated. If you read the actual document (easily downloaded it), at the end of page 1, and I quote:
This workshop will focus on the question of strategies for constraining and shaping geoengineering. We will explore formal, legal strategies as well as informal efforts to create norms that could govern testing and deployment of geoengineering systems and their possible undesirable consequences. We will probe whether it is possible to limit the use of geoengineering to circumstances of collective action by the international community in the face of true global emergencies and what might happen when there are disputes over when the emergency “trigger” should be pulled.
(emphasis is mine)
So that's where the "should be pulled" statement that shows up comes from. Is it really plausible that an "evil" organization would announce on its website that a too-revealing document "should be pulled." *much doubt*
One more thought, and this is at a infant level of science (I'm currently taking first year 2nd term university chemistry - for the fun of it - I also work full-time)...
We were talking in class about the formation of ozone from molecular oxygen, which is a very slow process. From what I understand, ozone is oxidized to oxygen rather easily, but the reverse process takes a very long time. So if a catalyst could be added to speed up the formation of ozone from oxygen, it could help to "mend" the holes in the ozone layer.
So I'm open-minded that there may be some research going on in this way, but I don't buy the hype, such as the statement above that "they" might be pulling the document to hide it.
Unless of course you believe that the CFR is a member of the evil NWO round table, such as is claimed on youtube.
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
Guess they forgot they had failed to disprove any of the logic I put forth in this thread.
How easily the truth can be forgotten.
4. Remarks—Climatic impact
It is interesting that the mean optical depth found in this case (0.35) corresponds to that found in climatological satellite measurements by Ponater et al. (2002) and Minnis et al. (2004), and that the microphysical properties are consistent with a wide range of observations and models by prior authors. Accordingly, it is appropriate to speculate on their effect on climate.
The issue of the impact of contrail-generated cirrus (CS) on climate change has been treated by a number of investigators. Sassen (1997) suggested that the unusually small particles typical of many persistent contrails might favor the albedo cooling over the greenhouse warming. Using a 2D mesoscale cloud model Khvorostyanov and Sassen (1998) computed the distribution of the mean crystal radius, concentration, and ice water content of a contrail after 30 min of development. They found a twofold effect. At the surface, the net greenhouse minus albedo effect was negative with a cooling of 15 W m−2. However, at the top of the atmosphere (corresponding to the entire atmospheric column), the net effect was a warming of 8 W m−2. We note that the latter simulation for the early stage of the cloud produced very large concentrations of small crystals and that the longwave warming would be increased relative to the shortwave cooling with the much larger particles, such as found in the present study.
The observation of the transformation of aircraft contrails to cirrus clouds has been reported repeatedly over the last half-century.
Nevertheless, using results from a general circulation model simulation of contrails, Minnis et al. (2004) found that the cirrus trends resulting from contrails in the United States are estimated to cause a tropospheric warming of 0.2°–0.3°C decade−1, a range that includes the observed trend of 0.27°C decade−1 between 1975 and 1994. One must emphasize that, even if correct, this is a regional effect. We may summarize the various studies as follows:
1. regional effects in the 1990s in the United States and Europe have a cover of 0.5%–2% with a maximum over Europe of 0.35%, and warming of 0.1–0.2 W m−2, and
2. global effects that are about 0.1 of the regional values.
"By most accounts, the leading contender is stratospheric aerosol particles," said climatologist John Shepherd of Britain's Southampton University.
The particles would be sun-reflecting sulfates spewed into the lower stratosphere from aircraft, balloons or other devices – much like the sulfur dioxide emitted by the eruption of the Philippines' Mount Pinatubo in 1991, estimated to have cooled the world by 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) for a year or so.
Engineers from the University of Bristol, England, plan to test the feasibility of feeding sulfates into the atmosphere via a kilometers-long (miles-long) hose attached to a tethered balloon.
Shepherd and others stressed that any sun-blocking "SRM" technique – for solar radiation management – would have to be accompanied by sharp reductions in carbon dioxide emissions on the ground and some form of carbon dioxide removal, preferably via a chemical-mechanical process not yet perfected, to suck the gas out of the air and neutralize it.