We need a geoengineering forum..."Chemtrail" properly geoengineering, threads do not belong instan

Originally posted by pianopraze


The
 geoengineering 
idea
 is 
to 
inject
 a 
“source” 
for 
aerosols 
into 
the
 same
 region 
of 
the
 atmosphere 
that 
volcanoes 
tend 
to 
inject
 the 
gas.

So not where clouds form then

You do understand that? That volcanic aerosols from the biggest eruptions cause cooling because they are ejected into the stratosphere. Not the troposphere.

reply to post by Essan


I think those are good suggestions that basically amount to taking personal responsibility in regards to our negative contributions (always a good answer for anything we wish to change.) But that also presumes that it is all just "natural" contrails as opposed to "modified" contrails. That would be a fine solution widely practiced in one respect but leaves off other potential causes (which I know is something we don't see eye to eye on.)

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by pianopraze


The
 geoengineering 
idea
 is 
to 
inject
 a 
“source” 
for 
aerosols 
into 
the
 same
 region 
of 
the
 atmosphere 
that 
volcanoes 
tend 
to 
inject
 the 
gas.

So not where clouds form then

You do understand that? That volcanic aerosols from the biggest eruptions cause cooling because they are ejected into the stratosphere. Not the troposphere.

Amazing thing I learned when I was reeeeeaaaaallll little....


What goes up.....

Originally posted by EssanBest of all, we could all die in which case I guess we'd not have any real impact on the planet whatsoever?

Wow, your sounding like a globalist now!

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

link

reply to post by pianopraze


I was waaaay ahead of those lot

Edit: incidently, do you understand the point Jacques Cousteau was making? I guess not.

How many more people are born each day than die ..... Think about it.

(I think he may have the numbers a bit out - I think it's more like 200,000 But the point remains )

Originally posted by EssanI was waaaay ahead of those lot

They aren't agressive enough for you? Your quite a person.

Wow, how many have you killed?

Thanks for the total derailment, your awesome at it!

I will take this oportunity to suggest we stay on the topic of how we really need a geoengineering (known as ADAPTATION on the political discussion) forum.

I do agree with you that injecting particulate aerosols into the stratosphere is just one of many geoengineering projects they are discussing. The US seems to be focusing on two, as shown by the latest paper on the topic which I just posted... both injecting aerosols. One for Solar Radiation Management by putting reflective particles such as So2 and H2So4 among others. The other by injecting particulates into the marine cloud layers.

Interesting that they both are about injecting particulate aerosols, and that is what all the debunkers are trying hardest to keep us from discussing....

Coincidence?

Originally posted by pianopraze

Interesting that they both are about injecting particulate aerosols, and that is what all the debunkers are trying hardest to keep us from discussing....

I thought it was the chemtrailers derailing us off discussion of such things? It woud be a good subject for discussion - the pros and cons of such a proposal, possible consequence, costs and indeed just how such a proposal could be put into practical operation. But somehow I can't see it happening on ATS.

Originally posted by Essan
I thought it was the chemtrailers derailing us off discussion of such things? It woud be a good subject for discussion - the pros and cons of such a proposal, possible consequence, costs and indeed just how such a proposal could be put into practical operation. But somehow I can't see it happening on ATS.

Not so much, Mat has been providing hard science papers right and left and not bickering.

I only see cons in more ways than one with these proposal. The geoengineers keep harping on how we should not proceed yet are being offered funding so they will develop these methods. It sure would be nice if they would all stand up and say we're not doing it...

yeah.. even they don't believe that's going to happen... so then we as a human race our driving ourself to possible extinction because we're too stupid to not be greedy. Our own nature will be the end of us if we can't find a way to grow as a species. Some of the very things that helped us survive are now the greatest impediment to our survival.

It's not global warming that will be our end, it's greed, love of power, and the insuing insanity.

These scientist will do their bit, the disinformation agents will do their bit... and people who are to caught up living their lives will suffer...

Or maybe we will all wake up and shake off these pack of fleas...

Click here for more information.

reply to post by pianopraze

I will take this oportunity to suggest we stay on the topic of how we really need a geoengineering (known as ADAPTATION on the political discussion) forum.

Adaptation is the process by which societies prepare for and minimize the negative effects of a variety of future environmental stresses on society, Sarewitz said. Mitigation is the effort to slow and reduce the negative impacts of climate change by slowing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"The key difference is that adaptation is the process by which societies make themselves better able to cope with an uncertain future, whereas mitigation is an effort to control just one aspect of that future by controlling the behavior of the climate," Sarewitz said.

Science Daily

Mitigation = Cutting down on fossil fuels
Geo-engineering = Artificially controlling the environment
Adaptation = Building your house on stilts because there's nothing else you can do as the icecaps melt.

Climatic adaptation

en.wikipedia.org...

Climatic adaptation

Main article: Adaptation
Climate adaptation refers to specific adaptations in a living organism that develop in response to changes in climate and habitat. Such adaptations could include physical changes, such as skin or fur color and composition changes, or the adaptations could be behavioral, such as burrowing into the ground or spending more time in water

Climate adaptation means changing behaviors it applies to both methods of geoengineering CDR & SRM.

It applies to injecting aerosols into the atmosphere also.

Most of the time CDR methods are referred to as mitigation.

SRM is more commonly referred to as adaptation because it does nothing to stop the overall problem of Co2.

Hi Richard - Thanks for the invite. I have not repaired my computer - i am enjoying not being bound on-line. I started reading this thread and then noticed that we have ten pages here. Sorry, but i do not have the initiative to read this. Geo-engineering is, just as money is. I am certain that the deeper we go, the more the paper trail will lead to profits - who benefits?

If i can help answer technical questions, I would like to help. I plan to make more you-tube videos like the one on nuclear chemistry - if people want to suggest topics, i would be more than pleased to explain how the chemistry works. For geo-engineering, the chemistry works badly - the idea of particles deflecting wave radiation to control gaian heating does not make sense. The aluminum toxicity is denied, even though i believe all the proof is obvious. Fluoride is also a highly toxic by-product of the aluminum smelting industry.

Perhaps transparency does not mean all cards on the table. The peer reviewed nonsense is done by gatekeepers holding the reigns on knowledge - we the people must do our own homework and come up with a better system. Civil disobedience was once suggested by a gentleman named Thoreau - a lawyer named Ghandi introduced satyagraha. Perhaps we need to go back to simpler times, simpler methods. Really, we would just like straight answers.

PS: thank you Mattias for the invite, too

reply to post by lemmehowdt


Hello Dr Lenny, I'm pleased you could join us again. Welcome back.

I would like to ask you a question about the hygroscopic nature of different types of aerosols.

Aerosols such as So2 emissions from aircraft or aerosols such as barium salts if sprayed into the atmosphere.

Can you tell me what might be the cause of persistent spreading contrails vs non persistent contrails?

Would the chemistry of the aerosols have a large effect on the nature of a contrail?

Originally posted by pianopraze
[Not so much, Mat has been providing hard science papers right and left and not bickering.

Not bickering?? Matty? [cough...]

But as for his list of papers yes he's found heaps.

None of which actually support hte idea that there is any such thing as chetrails.

The geoengineers keep harping on how we should not proceed

??? where do you read that?

yet are being offered funding so they will develop these methods. It sure would be nice if they would all stand up and say we're not doing it...

well why dont' you fund the research into it then?

thereason they don't say "chemtrails aren't hapenining" is that hey are not researching chemtrails - they are rsearching geo-engineering, or atmospheric aerosols, or whatever.

Not chemtrails!

These scientist will do their bit, the disinformation agents will do their bit... and people who are to caught up living their lives will suffer...

how exactly are we suffering from chemtrails, or from geo-engineering being researched??

reply to post by pianopraze

It's not global warming that will be our end, it's greed, love of power, and the insuing insanity.

These scientist will do their bit, the disinformation agents will do their bit... and people who are to caught up living their lives will suffer...

Or maybe we will all wake up and shake off these pack of fleas...

I don't think we can have a discussion about geo-engineering without considering the possible motives of WHY it would be done, and at the very least is already being tested in the "field", When we have quotes from the horse's mouth saying human's are basically a blight that needs to be eradicated, and those same folks are funding geo-engineering "research" we have a problem!!
When it comes to old Jacques Cousteau, even if he meant well at some point, he bought into a mindset of environmentalism that could quite possibly be one of TPTB's nastier tricks. It's all of us "horrible" people killing the plants and animals. Do any of us really believe that any involement of geo-engineering projects by the elite is about saving the envirnment, animals, plants, and oh yeah the people!?
I think your instincts are right on Piano....important piece of the puzzle.....

reply to post by pianopraze

The white hose paper on ADAPTATION suggest there are current geoengineering programs currently being carried out by "other" nations as of 2010.

You are misunderstanding what "adaptation" is; it has little, if anything, to do with geoengineering.

One deals with stopping or lessening the effects of climate change (geoengineering).

The other is concerned with present-day and future management of the effects of climate change as it manifests itself in things like farming impacts (crop yields, growing seasons, habitation), water use, management, and distribution, and population movements. (adaptation)

If you believe in AGW, or the power of man against nature, then these are benevolent things.

It is not much of a stretch to imagine these geoengineering aka adaptation programs are using the number one method.

At least you come close to admitting this is all imaginary

So please do not focus on "chemtrails" in this document as I have repeated pointed out that is a derailment.

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Originally posted by DJW001
Science Daily

Mitigation = Cutting down on fossil fuels
Geo-engineering = Artificially controlling the environment
Adaptation = Building your house on stilts because there's nothing else you can do as the icecaps melt.

Actually after relooking at it you are correct. However they are using it loosely to include the funding for geoengineering policies, thus my confusion.

Adaptation should, where possible, use strategies that complement or directly support other related climate or environmental initiatives, such as efforts to improve disaster preparedness, promote sustainable resource management, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions including the development of cost‐effective technologies.

dot gov source

So you are correct, thank you for the clarification. They use the term almost interchangeably in the literature, but it's technically what you say.

They are going to use this to push Agenda 21, as Jessie showed this in louisiana starting at 36:45:

Agenda 21 for dummies:

UN Website on Agenda 21: link.
This is the U.S. Version of it: National_Strategy_for_a_Sustainable_America
Although they are using it to push north american union via NASCA: nasca.

Since there is no way we would vote to become part of the north american union they are using any and all means to do it through treaties to make the distinctions between our three countries almost moot... an end run around the Constitution.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The problem is they could be currently geoengineering, with the FDA loophole technically legally implementing these efforts, particularly the injection of aerosol particulates.

Where are the results? This is supposed to helpful! No one has proposed that the reason to implement geoengineering is to increase global warming, do they?

JW stated two cases they admitted to geoengineering.

NO! I cited several studies, all done by private individuals and educators, all public, and ALL FAILURES!

Why do you deliberately slant things to fit your alarmist agenda?
Do you dream of the day (never to come) when you can look back at all the "bullies" who made you feel bad in school, and say, "I Told You So?"

History shows them guilty of lying about ongoing projects. Rationally we should assume they continue, Gitmo proves the evil they are currently doing. Our government continually perpetuates evil and lies and covers it up.

This rant has nothing to do with geoengineering. Are you offering your opinion that geoengineering isn't really about HELPING mankind, but secretly trying to harm us?

The problem is So2, aluminum, barium, strontium, etc are less lethal in the short run, but in the end might kill more people in the long run.

Where do these fit into geoengineering? How are they currently harming people?

What is the lethality of these secret evil geoengineering programs that are plainly visible to "chemtrail" believers, funded and studied by humanitarian NGOs, and anti-AGW?

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by jdub297


Hey Jdub I think you got the wrong "in reply to" at the top of that last post of yours - your reply is actually to this one - www.abovetopsecret.com... - not my one that it shows.

Cheers