Worlds first Geoengineering thread in the new ATS geoengineering forum!

Thank you ATS for listening!!!

Now we have a place other than skunkworks to discuss this very hot-button topic.

ATS leads the way, where even the mainstream media fear to tread!

I'd like to christen this thread with the CFR, and UN top shelf info:

UN:
The UN discusses geoengineering under the term ADAPTATION: UN link.

CFR:
The CFR discusses it under geoengineering. CFR website.

Technically adaptation is mans response to climate change, but since the UN is using this term loosely in parallel with geoengineering it is important people are aware of it.

This thread is dedicated to bringing your info on geoengineering and adaptation.

reply to post by pianopraze


Piano, good work! Thanks to you, Skeptic Overlord, and everyone who has been
persistent in denying ignorance!

ATS does rock!

Id like to add none other than the U.S. Global Change Research Program.
With its 2 billion dollar a year budget for 2011, its sure to be a game changer.



downloads.globalchange.gov...

On paper I can support responsible geoengineering. I think of it as a prelude to distant terraforming.

However, ecosystems are incredibly fragile. I dont think we have the finesse to cover the "responsible" angle.

And here is your first [SNIP] reply; Absolute proof of chemtrails!!!






Btw, I think the Chemtrails theory is highly plausable...
But I don't see any in South Africa. Must be a northern hemisphere thing...
Best of luck with this forum, hope it makes an impact.


Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by burntheships


Absolutely ATS rocks!

(Literally on Friday night into saturday morning on ATS Live After Midnight show - catch it every week I love it!)

Thank you to Skeptic Overlord and all the ATS crew!

Here is some more top shelf geoengineering info:

Air Force paper Owning the weather in 2025 - Military Applications of Weather Modification (also here)

Introduction - Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Appendix

Now we no part of the mission of the secretive new UAV shuttle that the air force has recently launched:

In 2025, uninhabited aerospace vehicles (UAV) are routinely used for weather-modification operations.

Method. Put the aerosols in the jet fuel or directly injected them into the hot exhaust, either way they come out in the contrails (full details are further in, i'm just posting the abstracts):

David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89512-1095, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Received 1 April 2009 Accepted for publication 12 August 2009 Published 30 October 2009 Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/4/045102
Abstract
Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than −2.8 W m−2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m−2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.

full pdf paper

This paper and Video have many hard core science papers on the subject such as the two listed above. The video is a lecture by an aerospace engineer. Very informative.

www.scribd.com...

credit to BTS for finding video

Well, hello there.

I'm still learning more about ChemTrails, so I'm sure this new forum is going to be great for information. I've been noticing more and more of them in my area and I've talked to a few people who told me to google it. I've found some information, mainly youtube videos, but I really wanted a nice in depth discussion that I could read and follow.

I think I found it.

reply to post by CalmAsHinduCows


Chemtrails is the hot-button word. But is you search you find mostly conspiracy or second rate info.

The real scientific discussion, and where the heart of the matter lies is in "geoengineering" on the science side and "adaptation" on the political side.

Look for those two terms in your search engine and you will find many credible sources.

Also instead of "spraying" try "stratospheric injection of aerosol particulates". In a war of information vernacular is everything.

We need to shift the conversation from "chemtrails" to "geoengineering"

This lady explains why:

credit to Mat for finding the video

reply to post by pianopraze


And this is exactly why I joined. I never would have thought about using any of those words in searching. I will definitely be enjoying this forum quite a bit. Thanks, again.

reply to post by CalmAsHinduCows


Your welcome, and welcome to the discussion!

Here is one of the best sources I've run across so far. It is the Canadian Study: link to paper.

In it they talk briefly about several geoengineering possibilities but focus on using aerosols to reflect sunlight. The explore the best size of the particulate aerosols to use, mention a couple types of aerosols, and extensively explore how much it will cost. They conclude it is so cheap, one or two rich individuals could fund such a project.

Geoengineering may be a means to create a time buffer against catastrophic climate change while long-term emissions reduction actions take effect. One approach is to disperse particulates at high altitude to reduce the effective solar flux entering the atmosphere. Sulfur compounds have been proposed, similar to the compounds emitted during volcanic eruptions that have been found to cool surface temperatures. As shown in Figure 1, the reduction in top-of-atmosphere solar flux is dependent on the quantity of sulfur dispersed per year. Other particulates may also be suitable. This study investigates means of transporting quantities geoengineering payload to altitude and releasing it at specified release rates. A variety of systems including airplanes, airships, rockets, guns, and suspended pipes are examined with a goal of lifting 1 million tonnes to alti- tude per year; we also evaluate 3 and 5 MT/year for a few delivery systems.

reply to post by pianopraze


They say, its all in the name.

Perhaps thats precisely how they have gone so long under the radar - so to speak with all of the experiments.

Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.real-agenda.com... real-agenda.com...

Case Orange Report rejects the use of the word "Chemtrails" precisely because it has been
associated with "conspiracy theories."

Yet its a search term that many will still use, and now they will land here at ATS where our motto is
Deny Ignorance.

wow this is a first that we known web site has its own dedicated thread to this. ATS rocks!!!!! now that i have a vid cam available to me the next time i see them spray , i will need help doing the upload any one willing to help let me know, for i will be asking.

reply to post by pianopraze


The first thread, cool..

What we need to do is try and keep out the disinfo agents..
And no, I do NOT mean the skeptics..
No point debating without both sides to the argument..

What I mean is those that post obvious contrails and scream chemtrails..
Or repeat videos of proven hoaxes..
We need to call them out just as fast as the skeptics do to be taken seriously..

Now lets rock..

reply to post by burntheships


Absolutely.

By our language we are judged.

People pass tin foil when you choose chemtrails.

Peoples minds cloud over with confusion and boredom when you roll out adaptation, geoengineering, stratospheric injection of aerosol particulates, solar radiation management(SRM)... etc. Burying the truth in big words and alphabet soup - right in plane sight.

Yet try this experiment.
1. Open two search engines.
2. In the first type "chemtrails" and search.
3. In the second type "solar radiation management" and search

The results speak for themselves.

reply to post by bekod

I don't believe ATS allows direct upload of video anymore. You can easily put them on youtube and link them here using the "vid:youtube" button in your reply/comment.

I have a challenge for you when videoing. Get your local weather ballon data and record the conditions as well as the video. If you can correlate the days that have spraying that could not form persistent contrails you would have some ground breaking video.

Here is the site with most US weather ballons, I'm not sure how to find your local "station number", maybe call your local weather man and get the station number for the weather ballon: Weather Ballon data.

reply to post by backinblack


There is no keeping anyone out on ATS, but we can be aware of disinformation tactics and point them out when they are being used by certain people.

It is also nice to know them so we can avoid them ourselves and keep the discussion to a higher caliber.

There will always be trolls and those with agendas other than discussing the topic at hand.

These links are a must read:
link 1
link 2

And no matter how cute, or how tempting:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e8316440cc62.png[/atsimg]

Wait, what exactly is the difference between "Geo-engineering" and "Terraforming" or is it just semantics?

reply to post by dethduck


Geoengineering is the process of changing climate... weather. Usually it is to produce cooling now by passive techniques such as lowering carbon emissions or active ones such as Solar Radiation Management (SRM) such as spreading aerosols particulates into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight.

Terraforming is a theoretical process for changing uninhabitable planets to inhabitable ones.

reply to post by pianopraze

So then, geo-engineering, while separate from, can be an element or aspect of terraforming?

reply to post by pianopraze


Great video, interesting stuff out there. I started recently worrying about chemtrails because here In Canada I start to hear more and more planes passing by during these days. Maybe it has nothing to do with it but I noticed the trails in the sky and it's not a recent phenomenon. I watched the video only 5 min and plan to watch it completely someday.

Star for this post.


Thruthseek3r

reply to post by dethduck


That is correct, however geoengineering is referring to how to change the climate here on earth to avoid "climate change".

Here are a few common geoengineering suggestions from the CFR symposium:

1. Add small reflecting particles in the stratosphere.
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere.
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects or diffraction gratings in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planet's land cover from things that are dark and absorbing, such as trees, to things that are light and reflecting, such as open snow-cover or grasses.

1. Stratospheric aerosols
Adding more of the right kind of fine particles to the stratosphere can increase the amount of sunlight that is reflected back into space. This is not hard to do, nor all that expensive. David Keith has suggested that it should be possible to create microscopic reflecting composite particles that would be self- orienting and self-levitating, and thus might not have to be replaced very frequently. Sources: NASA; Boeing; www.carlstumpf.com A single nation could do these within it's national boundaries

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/373711cc2b32.png[/atsimg]

2. Add more clouds
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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0057488677d.png[/atsimg]

3. Reflectors or diffraction gratings in space

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7604fdb4007a.png[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60cb4bd22bd0.png[/atsimg]

4. Change land cover
For example, when the boreal forests were removed in the NCAR coupled ocean- atmosphere climate model, air temperature fell 12°C at 60°N in April and were still as much as 5°C colder in July.

He provides no pictures for this one but I provide it particularly chilling. Since when was deforestation a good thing???

All of this is predicated on man-made global warming. A still unproven postulate. Climate-gate has shown the they were cooking the books. It was warmer in the middle ages than now, all the planets are currently warming suggesting unknown solar or galactic influences we do not yet understand.

This presentation is indicative of most discussions on global warming. The injection of aerosol particulates seems to be the one most discussed and relatively inexpensive:

The cost of geoengineering
As noted in the briefing paper: A National Research Council 1992 report estimated the undiscounted annual costs for a 40-year project to be $100 billion.
Teller, Wood and Hyde have suggested that well designed systems might reduce this cost to as little as a few hundred million dollars per year.
If we take cost to be between $100 million and $100 billion per year