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.

 

Chemtrail Debunkers....

page: 60
36
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Has anyone read this document yet? It's from 2007 and outlines a proposed plan for full scale global implementation of injected aerosol geoengineering by 2012.

SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007
A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)

thehardlook.typepad.com...
 


Here is another document (one of many)

thehardlook.typepad.com...


The challenge posed by geoengineering is not how to get countries to do it. It is to address the fundamental question of who should decide whether and how geoengineering should be attempted—a problem of governance (Barrett 2007). Failure to acknowledge the possibility of geoengineering may or may not spur countries to reduce their emissions, but it will mean that countries will be unrestrained should the day come when they would want to experiment with this technology. This, to my mind, is the greater danger.



THE INCREDIBLE ECONOMICS OF GEOENGINEERING
*
Scott Barrett
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
18 March 2007
Geoengineering—which I shall take to be the deliberate modification of the climate by means
other than by changing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases—sounds like an idea
conceived in Hollywood.1 To most people, the suggestion seems crazy if not dangerous
(Schelling 1996). For better or worse, however, it is a concept that needs to be taken seriously.
As I shall explain in this paper, its future application seems more likely than not. This is partly
because the incentives for countries to experiment with geoengineering, especially should
climate change prove abrupt or catastrophic, are very strong. It is also because the incentives for
countries to reduce their emissions are weaker. Geoengineering and mitigation are substitutes.




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
ALBEDO ENHANCEMENT BY STRATOSPHERIC SULFUR INJECTIONS:
A CONTRIBUTION TO RESOLVE A POLICY DILEMMA?

www.cogci.dk...


The estimated annual cost to put 1 Tg S in the stratosphere, based on information by the NAS (1992), at that time would have been US $25 billion (NAS, 1992; Ron Nielsen, personal communication). Thus, in order to compensate for enhanced climate warming by the removal of anthropogenic aerosol (an uncertain mean value of 1.4 W/m2 , according to Crutzen and Ramanathan (2003)), a stratospheric sulfate loading of 1.9 Tg S would be required, producing an optical depth of 1.3%. This can be achieved by a continuous deployment of about 1–2 Tg S per year for a total price of US $25–50 billion, or about $25–50 per capita in the affluent world, for stratospheric residence times of 2 to 1 year, respectively. The cost should be compared with resulting environmental and societal benefits, such as reduced rates of sea level rise.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Has anyone read this document yet? It's from 2007 and outlines a proposed plan for full scale global implementation of injected aerosol geoengineering by 2012.

SUPPLEMENT TO
Testimony Before the
United States Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, D.C.
Submitted to the Record
October 3, 2007
A Framework to Prevent the Catastrophic Effects of Global
Warming using Solar Radiation Management (Geo-Engineering)

thehardlook.typepad.com...


Now there's an example REAL disinformation for you - the report makes no mention of 2012 at all.

What it does propose is the following:


This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.


So it doesn't even propose a plan - it is a "framework" that "contemplates" an "approach" that has the "objective" of achieving [saving the world] "within 5 years".

But no start date is given or proposed.

Matty has taken the report date, added the 5 years for the bit I quoted above, and decided it was aimed at implementation by 2012.

Classic disinformation by Matty!!



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
carlineconomics.googlepages.com...

THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 COVER STORY

Risky Gamble


The environmental community has done a great planetary service by highlighting the need for worldwide climate change control. There has been remarkably little analysis of the specific problems posed by global warming, however, and of the best ways to respond to them. Instead, most advocates have endorsed a panacea that I will characterize as exclusive regulatory de-carbonization, or ERD. They argue that since greenhouse gases are the cause, the solution must be mandated cuts in emissions or possibly removal of gases already in the atmosphere. This is a well-meaning conclusion consistent with previous pollution control efforts. But while ERD can help, recent research shows that it would not be enough to solve the most serious problems posed by a rapidly warming world. Fortunately, there is an option that would solve most of these problems, more quickly, effectively, and efficiently, and without the need for alterations in lifestyle: solar radiation management, or SRM. The one problem that cannot be resolved through such an approach (detailed below) may well be beyond the capability of regulatory de-carbonization as well, so SRM may be our best hope of coping with a changing world.



Any approach to climate change control needs to be able to handle all credible threats. It needs to be flexible, to rapidly adapt to new knowledge or events. It needs to be inexpensive enough to minimize damage to the economy but effective enough to protect us. Although regulatory de-carbonization can play a useful role, this is really a description of SRM or some combination of SRM and regulatory de-carbonization. Building, testing, and deploying a workable SRM capability is the best investment we can currently make to control climate change. Unfortunately, we are not taking this modest step and probably will not as long as we remain fixated on solutions that demand wholesale reform of the world's energy economy.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




But no start date is given or proposed

You're the one supplying classic disinfo Aloysius


The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research



5. Proposed Timeline

This Framework contemplates a five phase approach that would likely achieve its objective of
guaranteeing prevention of catastrophic sea level rise within five years.

Phase I – Laboratory Research and Institutional Development: A consortium to
include the national leaders in SRM, would conduct preliminary research and technical
development work and draft a detailed plan to accomplish the necessary pilot scale
testing of SRM, to include funding requirements. The ideal leader of this consortium
would be Professor Wood (with significant assistance by Professor Caldeira and his
colleagues), and would include institutional experts such as Professor Barrett at Johns
Hopkins. Most physical research would involve laboratory scale physics and chemistry,
as well as computer simulations, modeling, and analyses of the kind routinely conducted
by climate scientists today. Simultaneously, the institutional research branch would
identify alternative means to regulate and manage SRM use, to include formation of a
specific objective such as presented in the first Element above. The plan would include a
detailed proposal for formation of a control institution to test and regulate the use of
SRM. The plan would ideally be reviewed and accepted by experts from a very wide
spectrum of relevant disciplines (18 months, $3.5 million estimated).

Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing
scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation
plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).

Phase III: Review research results and propose and take comment on an SRM schedule
of events. This would be the first major action of the international SRM control body. It
would include a reexamination of the objective to ensure adequate global support (18
months).


Phase IV: Solar Radiation Management (SRM) begins under international control
through the SRM control body. Implementation would be transparent and would include
continuing monitoring and reporting of physical effects as well as and semi-annual plan
revisions based on new information gained. Full SRM for the geographic area
selected/world would be realized within weeks of full implementation. Note that if the
quantities are correctly selected, it would be possible to design SRM so that no further
warming of the area selected/world would occur after that time regardless of other
climatic events as long as an appropriate level of particles is maintained.

Phase V: Maintenance of SRM system based on continued comparisons between
objectives (element 1 above) and actual achievements. The SRM program, if effective,
would be expected to continue until no longer needed (when greenhouse gases are
adequately controlled), and could be expected to remain in place for a century.
For a more lengthy discussion on some of the concepts underlying this Framework, see Carlin,
2007.

edit on 31-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Like I said, no start date given.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
www.newswithviews.com...


Geoengineering is defined as “planetary-scale environmental engineering of our atmosphere, our weather, the oceans, and the Earth itself. The methods, or schemes, that may be used now without public oversight or debate, prior public notification, U.S. Congress or State oversight, are staggering in number and scope.

Many private corporations, universities, government agencies, private individuals, states, counties, and cities, may participate in deploying a vast array of geoengineering experiments. Currently no government agency, or the U.S. Congress at this time, will have any idea what the cumulative or synergistic effects may be when these experiments are deployed. In addition, no one, not even the U.S. Congress or the public, will have any oversight of these programs or how they will be implemented unless action is taken today to prevent these questionable experiments.

The U.S. House of Representatives held a Geoengineering Hearing (1), on November 5, 2009, where the public, the Environmental Protection Agency, at either Federal or State levels, state agencies, agriculture representation or ocean scientists were not present. And now many climate and geoengineering scientists are holding meetings in 2010, preparing to implement and fund various geoengineering schemes with either public or private funding without any oversight, public notification or consent.



Legitimacy and the international regulation of geoengineering with solar radiation management:
Prospects for normative institutional design theory

www.umt.edu...


Assuming that regulation of SRM
emerges at the international level, which of these institutional design properties seem
politically feasible?
Transparency increases the accountability of an institution’s members by allowing for a
clear identification of who is responsible for which decisions. Authority within an institution
would thus have to be clearly assigned to a body in charge of decision-making on SRM,
whose activities are openly communicated to the public. The latter is furthered by the close
proximity between the high-technology of SRM and science, where the open publication of
research is a common practice deeply rooted in the self-image of the participants. This could
be made use of by including a scientific body such as the IPCC in the communication of the
processes that occur within the institutional setting governing SRM



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 

Like I said, no start date given.


It says immediate...DUH




Im·me·di·ate/iˈmēdē-it/Adjective 1. Occurring or done at once; instant. 2. Relating to or existing at the present time: "his immediate priority". More » Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary


edit on 31-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit text



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
www.fas.org...


Table 2. Six Types of Functions Federal Entities Can Perform and Selected Federal Entities Authorized to Perform Them

In assessing what agencies should be involved and to what extent, policymakers may consider:
• The advantages or disadvantages of involving multiple agencies and entities;
• The different legislative authorities and areas of expertise that different agencies
and entities offer;
• The advantages and disadvantages of relying on independent, executive, and/or
legislative bodies; and
• The need to expand or constrict the legislative authority for some federal
agencies, so as to give them either more or less jurisdiction over geoengineering
activities.
There are, broadly speaking, at least six categories of authorized functions that different federal
entities can perform to assist the development and implementation of national policies on new
technologies. These categories are

(1) conducting research on the science or other aspects of geoengineering,
(2) facilitating an exchange of information about geoengineering,
(3) funding geoengineering activities,
(4) monitoring geoengineering projects and their effects,
(5) promulgating regulations, and
(6) enforcing regulations.
Table 2 lists selected agencies and entities that currently have the legislative authority to perform various sets of these different functions. These agencies and entities were selected for inclusion in the table because they may assist in the formulation or implementation of future policies on geoengineering, or, in some instances, have already begun to address geoengineering.However, it appears that, to date, no single federal entity is authorized to address the full range of geoengineering technologies.

Congressional Research Service Source:
list of agencies and entities authorized to perform these types of functions. RESEARCH

Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)
X X X X X X
Department of Energy (DOE)
X X X
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
X X X X X X
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)
X X X X
National Science Foundation (NSF)
X X X
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
X X X
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
X X X X
United States Global Climate Change Research Program
(USGCRP)
X X X


All 8 of these organizations are authorized to conduct Solar Radiation Management research
 

www.aei.org...

SPEECHES & TESTIMONY
Researching Solar Radiation Management as a Climate Policy Option
By Lee Lane | House Committee on Science and Technology
(November 05, 2009)


1.2.2 Stratospheric Aerosols

Inserting aerosols into the stratosphere is another approach. The record of several volcanic eruptions offers a close and suggestive analogy. The global cooling from the large Pinatubo eruption (about .5 degrees Celsius) that occurred in 1991 was especially well-documented (Robock and Mao, 1995). Such eruptions loft particles into the atmosphere. There, the particles scatter back into space some of the sunlight that would otherwise have warmed the surface. As more sunlight is scattered, the planet cools.

Injecting sub-micron-sized particles into the stratosphere might mimic the cooling effects of these natural experiments. Compared to volcanic ash, the particles would be much smaller in size. Particle size is important because small particles appear to be the most effective form for climate engineering (Lenton and Vaughan, 2009). Eventually, the particles would descend into the lower atmosphere. Once there, they would precipitate out. "The total mass of such particles would amount to the equivalent of a few percent of today’s sulfur emissions from power plants" (Lane et al., 2007). If adverse effects appeared, most of these effects would be expected to dissipate once the particles were removed from the stratosphere.

edit on 31-3-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


It says "immediate need" - not "immediate start".

And the "immediate need" is not to start - it is:


The Immediate Need for Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Research


and


Professor Barrett, Director of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, argues there is an immediate need to examine how to manage SRM use through an international body,.....


Did you get that?? The "immediate need" it to RESEARCH SRM, and to EXAMINE how to manage SRM!!

Why is it that you persist with quoting stuff out of context and then telling people it means something it never did??

edit on 31-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It also explains that after 18 months of research the next phase of resesaerch involves


Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).


Why do you keep insisting that research doesn't involve the above.





posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Did you read much of that pdf file you linked to, because I really found this interesting...


The term “geoengineering” describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.


www.fas.org...

Why do you constantly copy and paste only parts that you think will prove chemtrails are real? Try reading a bit more before you post, because then you might finally get it right sometime.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

If they were invisible then how would they reflect light back? That doesn't make since so geoengineering injection of aerosol particulates would most likely be visible...


Can YOU see in the infrared?

You could start by learning what geoengineering really is

It is NOT concerned with visible light. the aerosols are reflective in the infrared wavelengths most likely to add warmth to the atmosphere and surface!.

Deny ignorance
jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Did you read much of that pdf file you linked to, because I really found this interesting...


The term “geoengineering” describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.


www.fas.org...

Why do you constantly copy and paste only parts that you think will prove chemtrails are real? Try reading a bit more before you post, because then you might finally get it right sometime.




Once again, research phase 2 involves real world testing.

Geoengineering testing and research is not considered geoengineering because it is only done on a scale that doesn't effect other areas beyond the research zone.

All countries can conduct such "research" within their respective countries as long as it does not have "transboundary effects".



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





Geoengineering testing and research is not considered geoengineering because it is only done on a scale that doesn't effect other areas beyond the research zone.


So then the research is not geoengineering is it? Then why even mention geoengineering if that is not what the research is about?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


It also explains that after 18 months of research the next phase of resesaerch involves


Phase II: Careful real world testing of subscale versions of SRM at gradually increasing scales to verify any remaining questions and development of revised implementation plan; appointment and organization of the SRM control organization (18 months).


Why do you keep insisting that research doesn't involve the above.



THIS ISN'T EVEN RESEARCH!!

this is a FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL - someone thoughts on how a programme might proceed IF IT WAS EVER CARRIED OUT.

You plonker



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Once again, research phase 2 involves real world testing.


Once again, the "research phase 2" you love so much is part of a FRAMEWORK PROPOSAL.

Even the research it suggests is only a PROPOSAL.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


I note that you don't try to defend your 2012 "target date" allegation in those posts above.

Is avoiding teeh subject your way of admitting you are wrong yet again?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Why are geonegineering aficionados so intent on making something out of nothing?

Why not focus on research that shows what we are ACTUALLY doing to ourselves without resort to Youtube nonsense and cut & paste blurbs that leave out the main thrust of the article?

Here's a study on how we are making a mess of the environment with air traffic contrails. No need to resort to speculation. No need to grasp at some "geoengineering" euphemism.

How about straight-forward scientific research?

Contrails impact climate more than planes' carbon emissions




[T]he carbon released by air travel remains a relatively minor part of the global output—the impact of planes results from where they burn the fuel, not the mere fact that they burn it. A study in the brand-new journal Nature Climate Change reinforces that by suggesting that the clouds currently being generated by air travel have a larger impact on the climate than the cumulative emissions of all aircraft ever flown.

www.arstechnica.com...

The original study was published by tje journal Nature im its new Nature Climate Change edition.
www.nature.cpm...

According to the latest research, the contrail-to-cirrus transition adds much more to present day warming than CO2, or any proposed geoengineering program. Doesn't this work to counter some of the unbridled advocacy for SRM-using aircraft?

As AuroraGeo pointed out, to be effective such a program would require millions of flight and thousands of aircraft each year.

Doesn't sound very effective to me in light of this common-sense observation.

Maybe that's another reason they AREN'T doing it today.

What's the matter, is the truth too boring for the lunatic fringe? Why not focus on REAL problems and REAL solutions?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


So how does real world research happen with a conceptual idea? Geoengineering is not even science yet and nobody, not even the gov't are even attempting it. So can you show us who is doing any geoengineering since you insist that it is being done?







 
36
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join