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

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Has anyone seen the latest street view from ATS? It's quite amazing how little people really know about this issue.

The people on the street in New York City are not the best group to gauge public awareness and the people asking the questions don't ever mention the geoengineering aspect of this topic, which is a shame.

But it is good to see that ATS has brought this issue directly to some people who may not have ever heard about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
And we're off! Wow, not much vehemence from you/sarcasm.

If you are truly studying aerosol geoengineering, then you know that the focus is on levels far above normal cruising altitudes; the whole idea is to keep the aerosols airborne!

What goes up must (usually, unless it breaks free and goes on into space ) come down.
edit on 30-3-2011 by Clearskies because: of crud


No.
1.The real problems with stratospheric (and higher) application of aerosols are decomposition due to UV exposure and "bleeding off" or dissipation.

2. These are theoretical studies. The costs and risks are still being evaluated.

3.Show me where anyone has measured ANY ground-level effects of on-going stratospheric aircraft SO2 aerosol application. There are none, because "what" hasn't yet gone "up!"

Fearmongering?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
By its very definition, this type of geoengineering excludes "chemtrails," so why do we keep sliding back toward that?

If global warming mitigation is the object, what is so nefarious about that?

Why such paranoia?

Please pull this thread back to a rational discussion

jw


Noted, you are trying to switch to a "chemtrail" debate from geoengineering by the injection of aerosol particulates. Please use the correct terminology, as this is the whole point of this thread.

We are not debating "chemtrails" in here, we are discussing how government agencies want to switch the discussion away from geoengineering and onto chemtrails and that we need to use the correct terminology. Also we need to have a forum on geoengineering as suggested in OP.

If you are not a government agent attempting to switch the debate from geoengineering where all the hard science is to "chemtrails" please stay on topic. Feel free to present any links on geoengineering.

What is nefarious is carrying out geoengineering while saying they are not. Nefarious is implementing it at all because there is no predicting the harmful side effects. They can not even accurately predict the weather next week let alone how dumping tons of aerosols into the stratosphere will affect biological systems. The side effects could be extremely devastating. What is nefarious is that man made global warming is NOT a proven science. As a matter of fact those suggesting man made global warming have been proven to be nefarious in the way they twisted data.

Ahhh... already suggesting paranoia. Interesting that you use this again familiar technique. I will be bringing this to the moderators attention as well as any further posts that insinuate mental illness on those believing in current geoengineering.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



1.The real problems with stratospheric (and higher) application of aerosols are decomposition due to UV exposure and "bleeding off" or dissipation.


If some of these trails are NOT contrails then why do you assume they must be at altitudes conducive to contrail formation ??
They may be much lower, well within the troposphere...
They may be purposely designed to look like contrails..

Who knows? Just a thought.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

What? The stratosphere starts as low as 26,000' depending on your location..
Well within flight path cruise heights..


Not for this study. You didn't read the "Canadian study"/ AuroraGeoReport either, did you?

They specifically studied applications at the equator, between 30 degrees N and 30 degrees S.
There, the stratosphere starts at about 45,000' and there are few, if any regular commercial flights that traverse such a course.

That is the only relevant location for that study.

Are you now trying to debunk the OP's "geoengineers?"

jw

edit on 31-3-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



That is the only relevant location for that study.

Are you now trying to debunk the "geoengineers?"


I don't give two hoots about one particular study..
YOU were stating things in a general sense that were incorrect..
I will not fall for your twisting of comments..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Because of this temperature stratification, there is little convection and mixing in the stratosphere, so the layers of air there are quite stable. Commercial jet aircraft fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid the turbulence which is common in the troposphere below.

www.windows2universe.org...

Care to comment ???



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 



When you think about it, it doesn't take wealth to be a geo-engineer. When you fertilize soil, or eradicate pests, aren't you geoengineering on a small scale? However, I don't think there is any one person, family or NGO capable of even attempting a global effort.


Maybe you need to google Rothschild family wealth and get back to me on that.


I have; I've even started a thread on the Bilderberg group. That doesn't mean they are geoengineering.

As for the OP's reliance on 747s:

the canadian paper ... goes into great detail on 747 flying at 45k which is in well into the stratosphere, which i noted in my post. They also discuss the engines and research needed to get to the top of the stratosphere well above 100k.


If you looked at the charts, you'd see that theoretically-enhanced 747s are the least effective option among the many discussed. They barely touch the equatorial stratosphere. Moreover, they do not have the present day capability to effect the optimum application of SO2 for SRM. The study says so itself.

Aren't we going to discuss what's really happening instead of more possibilities? If not, you might as well discuss the other options of the study, including cannon, airships and floating pipelines.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Has anyone seen the latest street view from ATS? It's quite amazing how little people really know about this issue.

Sort of shoots down your "everyone knows this" contentions on other threads, no?


The people on the street in New York City are not the best group to gauge public awareness


You mean the most ethnically and socially diverse city in the country isn't a fair sample? How do you support this prejudiced opinion?


But it is good to see that ATS has brought this issue directly to some people who may not have ever heard about it.

It is also good that you come to realize that you may be making more of this than it deserves.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


I was merely commenting on this false statement by you..

Except, you immediately revert from "stratospheric" to tropospheric altitudes where you can fit the SO2 studies to commercial flight paths.


Who's to say some of them studies are not simply red herrings to cover the real scenario..
I don't trust our leaders, never have, never will...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by backinblack

Maybe you need to google Rothschild family wealth and get back to me on that.


I have; I've even started a thread on the Bilderberg group. That doesn't mean they are geoengineering.

If you looked at the charts, you'd see that theoretically-enhanced 747s are the least effective option among the many discussed. They barely touch the equatorial stratosphere. Moreover, they do not have the present day capability to effect the optimum application of SO2 for SRM. The study says so itself.

Aren't we going to discuss what's really happening instead of more possibilities? If not, you might as well discuss the other options of the study, including cannon, airships and floating pipelines.

jw


Did he mention bilderberg? No. He said Rothschild who have more than enough money to foot the bill for geoengineering by injecting particulate aerosols into the atmosphere as was suggested in the CFR paper when they mentioned one rich man could foot the bill. Nice twist.

45k is into the stratosphere no mater where on earth you are as I pointed out in my post. This is cheap and effective way by all accounts except yours. Prices range in the 100 million and up via both the Canadian and CFR studies... The prices listed in the Canadian paper above starting at .8 billion INCLUDE buying/altering the planes BTW. The technology exists present day to begin no matter how you twist.

What's really happening is you've fallen into a thread full of people who know all your tricks.

Feel free to present geoengineering papers without trying to twist. I would welcome it.

You are correct there are many more topics in geoengineering. The injection of particulate aerosols into the stratosphere via current day aircraft with minor alterations is only one, inexpensive (relative) way to geoengineer.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 
I fully intend to make this a two (or more)-sided debate, once I get through all the crap that veers over to equating geoengineering with aircraft and applications that leave contrails.

Your own "Canadian study" describes numerous methods SO2 application, as does Mat's CFR report. Why are we focusing on aerosol SRM mitigation? Is that the only type of geoengineering you've ever considered, or is it the only one that depends upon spraying airplanes?

A rose by any other name ... .


What is nefarious is carrying out geoengineering while saying they are not.


Who is "carrying out geoengineering while saying they are not?"

Please point me in the right direction. What are the observable effects of this program? Can they be reproduced? Have they?


Nefarious is implementing it at all because there is no predicting the harmful side effects.


Actually, the CFR paper DOES discuss risks as well as benefits.
Who is it that "is implementing" stratospheric SO2 injection?


They can not even accurately predict the weather next week let alone how dumping tons of aerosols into the stratosphere will affect biological systems.


That's probably why it HASN'T been done! Who exactly has dumped "tons of aerosols" into the stratosphere, and for how long?


The side effects could be extremely devastating.


Or not. We survived Mt. Pimatubo and Eyjafjallajökull, actual injections of "tons of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere."


What is nefarious is that man made global warming is NOT a proven science.


While I agree that AGW is not proven, there are many who are already committed to spend $100,000,000,000 per year to fight it, or just "climate change," regardless of the cause.

Even so, none of them have endorsed stratospheric SO2 injection as one of their "solutions."


As a matter of fact those suggesting man made global warming have been proven to be nefarious in the way they twisted data.

And got caught within a couple of years of doing so "in secret."

Why hasn't anyone "caught" the SO2 injectors, after almost 20 years?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 


That is the only relevant location for that study.
Are you now trying to debunk the "geoengineers?"

I don't give two hoots about one particular study..
YOU were stating things in a general sense that were incorrect..
I will not fall for your twisting of comments..


I was clearly discussing the OP's "Canadian study." Are you aware of any others on this thread that discussed 747s injecting SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere?

The only twisting, is your attempted mis-characterization of my statements, slowly, slowly in the wind.

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain's vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

www.guardian.co.uk...

It was over 30 years before the public learned of this spraying and lets face it, the Government is getting less transparent every year..



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



The only twisting, is your attempted mis-characterization of my statements, slowly, slowly in the wind.


BS mate..I posted above that I was commenting on your MISLEADING statements that commercial jets do not fly in the stratosphere..
That's it...Get over it..You were shown to be wrong...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 



Because of this temperature stratification, there is little convection and mixing in the stratosphere, so the layers of air there are quite stable. Commercial jet aircraft fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid the turbulence which is common in the troposphere below.

www.windows2universe.org...

Care to comment ???

Certainly, with the relevant portions you omitted:

The bottom of the stratosphere is around 16 km (10 miles or 53,000 feet) above Earth's surface near the equator, around 10 km (6 miles) at mid-latitudes, and around 8 km (5 miles) near the poles.


Again, the "Canadian study" focused strictly on equatorial applications. Well-above off-the-shelf 747s usual ceiling. That is the only study I've specifically addressed.

What's your point; that airplanes are spraying geoengineering aerosols in the "mid latitudes?" Who says so?

jw



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Sort of shoots down your "everyone knows this" contentions on other threads, no?


The people on the street in New York City are not the best group to gauge public awareness


You mean the most ethnically and socially diverse city in the country isn't a fair sample? How do you support thisprejudiced opinion?


But it is good to see that ATS has brought this issue directly to some people who may not have ever heard about it.

It is also good that you come to realize that you may be making more of this than it deserves.

jw


I notice the subtle way you inject things like "prejudice", "making more than it deserves" here, and "paranoid" in response to my post and other key words throughout your posts in this thread which subconsciously register on an unaware reader.

This is called subconscious suggestion.

Not sure I pointed this out before in other threads, but I am well aware of these techniques also.

Your government agentcies are using these to great affect in intelligence applications elsewhere, as shown in BTS thread here: BTS ats thread which she posted earlier in the thread.

I find it pathetic that governments are stupid enough to use these techniques on people who are aware of them. The Middle East has repeated shown they are aware of these agents and their techniques.

So can we stop sidetracking the conversation with these techniques as you're not getting paid to do this right? We're just here to have fun discussing geoengineering terminology, present papers on geoengineering and how we need a forum on geoengineering... which is the topics in the OP... aren't we?

Here's some other geoengineering techniques discussed in the CFR paper:

More clouds in the lower atmosphere
Early proposals suggested using sulfur. That would cause acid rain.
John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research has proposed that salt from seawater could be effectively used as cloud condensation nuclei.
Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh has designed an "albedo spray vessel" which would put the Latham theory into practice.

Theres a very interesting picture on page 16. CFR paper.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 


I was merely commenting on this false statement by you..

Except, you immediately revert from "stratospheric" to tropospheric altitudes where you can fit the SO2 studies to commercial flight paths.


That is an absolutely factual statement. Read the OP's study.


Who's to say some of them studies are not simply red herrings to cover the real scenario..
I don't trust our leaders, never have, never will...


Anyone who's seen my posts and threads know that I detest most of our supposed "leaders," this administration in particular. Unfortunately, many studies are carried out by independent organizations with no government or political affiliations, such as AuroraGeo and the University of Oregon.

If you don't trust "official" studies, don't cite them as authority for your propositions. Very simple, really.

jw
edit on 31-3-2011 by jdub297 because: closed quote



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Again, the "Canadian study" focused strictly on equatorial applications. Well-above off-the-shelf 747s usual ceiling. That is the only study I've specifically addressed.
What's your point; that airplanes are spraying geoengineering aerosols in the "mid latitudes?" Who says so?


Care to look at global flight paths and tell me where they are concentrated.??
I'll give you a tip, it ain't the equator...



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by jdub297
 

The only twisting, is your attempted mis-characterization of my statements, slowly, slowly in the wind.

BS mate..I posted above that I was commenting on your MISLEADING statements that commercial jets do not fly in the stratosphere..
That's it...Get over it..You were shown to be wrong...


That's not what I said or what you quoted.

The OP jumped from a study of stratospheric applications to references to tropospheric flights. Both are possible. I've never said otherwise.

The problem here, is that this thread appears bogged down in airplanes spraying chemicals, which have NOT been shown to be occurring, and which have NOT been shown to have any effect on the atmosphere, much less people at ground level.

The title of the thread doesn't speak in future tense. It refers to altering "chemtrail" topics to "geoengineering" topics. Want me to quote it?

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



Present tense. Right now. On-going.

Is anyone going to present something other than potentially spraying airplanes?
Is anyone going to talk about the multitude of present day, non secret geoengineering projects?

Even if we limit the discussion to AGW mitigation there are many proposals that ARE already being tested and implemented:
1. Iron fertilization. Deliberately stimulating plant growth in the ocean with the aim that the excess material will be permanently sequestered in the deep sea. This would supposedly remove carbon from the atmosphere.
This has been tried and failed disastrously. Plans are in the works for a different location and different application, but it is still going on.

2. Cloud whitening. Spraying seawater droplets into marine clouds to increase their reflectivity. This would also theoretically lower the amount of heat reaching Earth.
Tried and failed, at small- scale and large-scale trials. These were even the topic of a Discovery Channel (I think) series of numerous well-intentioned, but poorly researched geoengineering theories. Most of these actually put more CO2 into the atmosphere than they removed!

3. Atmospheric carbon capture. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere with a chemical absorbent (“scrubbers”) and then sequestering it. Again, another failure, and part of the TV series.

4. Geochemical carbon capture. Removing CO2 by using chemical pools to transform it to a dissolved or solid state. Tried in a football stadium and used more CO2-generating energy than it could remove in a large-scale test on the same series.

And what about the numerous other geoengineering projects that do not involve spraying airplanes?

What is the real agenda in this thread?

jw





top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join