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.
Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change
in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human
caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but
splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that
reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols
into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.
The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for
geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal,
that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing
the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For
other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be
developed.
There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some
geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate.
Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third,
we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the
reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we
start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological,
environmental, political and regulatory issues.
For all their advantages, field campaigns are
inherently limited by their relatively short
duration and small spatial coverage.
In our earlier Report, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, we carried out a wide
examination of geoengineering. The Report provided us with an opportunity to consider
the implications of a new engineering discipline for UK policy-making. The broad
definition of geoengineering that we used in the earlier Report holds good: we use the term
“geoengineering” to describe activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a
change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that
is, human made) climate change.2 A more succinct definition was provided by one of the
witnesses to the current inquiry, Professor Keith: the intentional large-scale manipulation
of the environment.3
The second category of climate geoengineering methods aims to offset greenhouse
warming by reducing the incidence and absorption of incoming solar (short-wave)
radiation.38 Proposals in this category include space-based shades or mirrors to block a
portion of incoming solar radiation; and ways of increasing the Earth’s albedo (that is, its
surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation) by increasing cloud cover, whitening clouds or
placing reflective particles or balloons into the stratosphere.39
Aerosol injection Large volcano eruptions result in the mass injection of sulphate particles—
formed from the emitted sulphur dioxide—into the stratosphere. As these aerosols reflect solar
radiation back to space, or themselves absorb heat, mass eruptions result in a cooling of the lower
atmosphere. The eruption of Mount Tambora in present day Indonesia, for example, was thought
to have produced the “year without a summer” in 1816. In the 1970s, Professor Budyko proposed
that “artificial volcanoes” be geoengineered. That is, that sulphate aerosols be injected into the
stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by these “super-eruptions”.43
51. Dr Blackstock considered that because stratospheric aerosols and cloud whitening were
the only category of techniques that could be used with a rapid impact on the climate
system there was a need to get regulatory structures in place before large scale field tests
were started.106 He said that field experiments designed to have demonstrably negligible
environmental and trans-boundary risks were valuable for feasibility testing deployment
technologies, and for exploring local-scale physical, chemical and biological interactions
that could damage the environment when scaled up.107 Dr Blackstock explained that once
“you start running into the potential for transboundary impacts, or at least a perception of
transboundary impacts, and so international mistrust, international concern of what
another country will do with that technology can come up very rapidly”.108 Professor Keith
added that “governance is central at the point where we lock it, and the reason is that it is
so cheap that the challenge for the international system will be to restrain unilateral
action”.109
Originally posted by bsbray11
What is this, whack-a-bunk?
What exactly do you find so convincing about that video? How about the Shasta snow sample at 6:35? Is that a good example? If that were shown to be bogus, then would that give you any pause? Or is there a better one in there?
You have the data he was referring to, and are able to refute it, off hand?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's another study to debunk while you're at it:
Lots of interesting information there too, huh?
Originally posted by bsbray11
"some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway"
Originally posted by Uncinus
They tested dirty summer snow, and hence found dirt.
Originally posted by Uncinus
And what does it look like? There's over a hundred different forms of geoengineering, depending on how you stretch the definition. Which one is being tested?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Just came across this PDF: click
"the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions"
"some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway"
I wonder what "they" consider "very small scale"? Either way there is your proof that this is happening right there. This comes from the UK House of Commons.
Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith
told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing,100 though Dr Blackstock added
that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”.101
Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Here's another for the USA: click
Titled "U.S. Climate Change Science Program; Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.3; January 2009"
The first section is entitled "Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts"
Look at the table of contents alone and you will see all the proof you need that this is not just make-believe or lies, but that your own congressmen are explaining it to you already.
"Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. In this report radiative forcing values are for changes relative to preindustrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2)."
In simple terms, radiative forcing is "...the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere."
Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions.
Originally posted by Phage
Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.
www.popsci.com...
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Uncinus
They tested dirty summer snow, and hence found dirt.
I don't believe you're serious.
A guy shows you the report himself, showing aluminum levels above what is allowed before government action has to be taken, according to the people he contacted to perform the water test. Come on, why don't you just get it over with and call him a liar too.
A guy shows you the report himself, showing aluminum levels above what is allowed before government action has to be taken, according to the people he contacted to perform the water test. Come on, why don't you just get it over with and call him a liar too.
Originally posted by Phage
What water test? The test was on old snow.
Originally posted by Phage
You understand that there is dust in clouds right? It gets lifted up by the same thing that causes clouds to form. You understand that there is dust in the air, right? When rain falls through air, it collects that dust.
Originally posted by Phage
Mangels is not a USDA biologist. He worked in the the USDA Soil Conservation Service. He has a PhD in forestry.
The federal government has no MCL for aluminum.
California sets the MCL for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/l. That's about what that sample showed. Would I drink it? Sure, if I was thirsty. But I don't make a habit out of drinking out of rain gauges.
The test is meaningless.
Then there are these tests that they don't tell you about in the movie for some reason.
www.mtshastanews.com...