reply to post by JacKatMtn
Edit, from this later post comment:
Seems that messing with the atmosphere is no big deal... Question remains... How far have they gone?
NO, I think it
is a big deal...hence abundance of caution, and even question as to whether they should at all.....I think it's a BAD idea,
since we still have much to learn. Meant to add, one clue though, as to effectivity (and I think they touch on this) is the observations from
volcanic activites, in past. Seems even with the massive amounts of material that Mother Nature can throw up into the atmosphere, the total global
temperature change result is minimal....there are data and articles online, I believe...
SO, on to the rest......Well...basically, first glance, this is similar to many, many other suggested strategies that are being discussed. NOT
implemented. I think the recent (and headline-making) UN Resolution regarding GEO....urging to continue to do nothing, until or unless there is
International consensus, indicate the concerns that were felt, because this topic has drawn a lot of attention, of late.
Note that the chemical formula "H2SO4" is actually also known as "sulphuric acid". Not sure that's a very user-friendly term they want bandied about
in public.......
I have to check, but pretty sure that H2SO4 is already a consequence of petroleum fuels burning....coal, I think mostly. Hence, the "acid rain"
concerns, dating back for decades....as the sulphuric acid emitted into the atmosphere, from burning of coal and some other petroleum products, enters
the water cycle, to eventually be lifted up into clouds, and rain back down. "Acid" conjure up faces melting off, and all that...but really, the
damage is due to PH balance disruptions.
SO.....spraying the sulphur compounds intentionally, into the stratosphere?? As I said, this is just one of the many ideas being thrown our for
discussion and comment. I saw an article that Bill Gates...yes,
that Bill Gates...was thinking of getting behind, involving large ships
on the ocean that were designed to pump up seawater, and loft it as spray into the atmosphere....the normal minerals and salts in the water were to
act as nuclei, for condensation and increasing cloud coverage. Seems this scheme, too, would be most effective nearer the Equator.
Another concept involving atmosphere, and airborne deliveries was covered in a thread by
zorgon last year....idea is using rockets,
instead of airplanes, and going well higher, just above the stratosphere IIRC....thereby, lessening the ground contamination potential. Still, when
you consider the sheer size of area, all of these seem implausible...but, I saw that they included some math calculations, which I will try to crunch
up.
In any case, that first link? You called it a "pdf", but it seemed to be some PowerPoint slides, after all....the last one, I will point to....asks
the "questions" about the advisability, and morality of this idea. Surely, despite many "claims" by some reactionary figures in the so-called
"chemtrail" camps, that is an indication that such concerns about "Are they doing it?" are premature. They are discussing, and evaluating. Any
actual implementation is certainly going to be public knowledge, and Internationally coordinated in scope, I'd imagine.....
edit on 3 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)
. 
