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 Trials Get Under Way

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 

Yes, it's turned into a political issue now, more than a scientific.

If the sun' activity is causing climate change, i ask myself, what is driving the these changes in solar activity?
I think it's not just solar activity on it's own, but it's more bigger, more galaxy related.

I didn't know we had solar data going back 8000 years? Didn't it started with observations made by Galileo?

From these records, co2 in the atmosphere isn't higher as other periods.
You can clearly see that co2 lags global temperatures. So co2 doesn't drive temperature changes.

The Milankovich theory comes close in explaining ice ages. But it has some problems.
en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: What about a combination? The position of earth (precession), the position of our solar system(spiral arm theory) and solar cycles?


Another interesting read on climate change
icecap.us...
icecap.us...
edit on 13-9-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2011 by intergalactic fire because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

I always find it interesting when people who often reject material from the MSM when it contradicts their notions, embrace it when it supports them. I prefer going to the source.

In reviewing the description of the SPICE project it is clear that there is no intention of real world testing of sulphates or any other geoengineering materials.

The project involves three areas.
One is the study of what type of aerosols may be suitable.

We will develop metrics of the suitability of various particle compositions, sizes and surface properties for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (including scattering efficiency, greenhouse effect, chemical reactivity, lifetime, cost of fabrication, health impact, capability to serve as ice nuclei, etc) and perform an assessment of candidate aerosol particles (sulphuric acid, sea-salt, other salts, minerals, and metal oxides) from the available literature and simple modelling of the key reactions, surface properties, agglomeration and sedimentation rates, and light scattering theory.


This will involve characterising the Mie scattering properties of a cloud of particles suspended in the 1m3 chamber at RAL. Sulphate will be characterised first, for a range of narrow particle size distributions, made using chemical and nebulizer techniques, over a range of droplet concentrations and used as a benchmark.


Specifically, in order to investigate the effects upon O3 chemistry, we will use the optical tweezers at the Central Laser Facility (CLF) at RAL to suspend single particles and investigate the surface catalysis effects upon the production of radicals that destroy O3


We will use the RAL-MSF rig to investigate agglomeration by running extended experiments that measure accurate particle size distributions over time.


The study of possible deployment methods is also part of the project.
Here's the description of the 1km testbed:

WP2:2: 1km Testbed. WP2.2 (a) will produce a pipe-balloon system to deliver a 3kg/min water stream at a height of 1km. The pumping pressure required is around 120 bar. Safety issues will be explored, for instance a parachute-controlled drop test. The testbed will require a substantial project management and a systems-engineering approach is required, with close collaboration with an experience engineering contractor. Testbed manufacture will only begin after input from a Public Engagement has taken place.
What are the results of that Public Engagement?

Overall almost all of our participants were willing to entertain the notion that the test-bed as an engineering test – a research opportunity – should be pursued. Equally very few were fully comfortable with the notion of stratospheric aerosols as a response to climate change.
psych.cf.ac.uk...
Sounds familiar. SRM may not be a good idea but testing should be done as long as it does not involve the actual implementation of the technology.


What about the next "phase"? What the Guardian claims will be "full scale solar radiation tests".
Funny, I can't seem to find where they came up with that. The third area of study involves the use of computer models. That's it.

WP3: Climate and Environmental Impacts. The impact of particle injection into the stratosphere will be evaluated using the UK Met Office Unified Model (UM) as the primary tool.


WP3.1 Improving our Confidence in Impact Assessment. In this work package essential groundwork will be carried out to assess and optimise the accuracy of the model and an extensive list of metrics and diagnostics will be developed to assess the impact of particle injection in the atmosphere.


WP3.2 Optimisation of Geoengineering Injection Options. The radiation and chemical components of the UM will be employed to test the characteristics of the identified candidate particles and a series of sensitivity studies carried out to provide guidance on the optimum particle and its mode of injection


WP3.3 Impact Assessment. Climate model simulations will be carried out and analysed using both sulphate aerosols and the candidate particle to carry out an assessment of the impact on both climate and ozone.

www2.eng.cam.ac.uk...

The "mad plan" is being done in laboratories and computer models, where it belongs. There is no plan to deploy a large scale test of geoengineering materials.
edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 



If the sun' activity is causing climate change, i ask myself, what is driving the these changes in solar activity?
I think it's not just solar activity on it's own, but it's more bigger, more galaxy related.


Your comments reminded me of a couple old threads:

Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change

The Changing Earth: Explaining Extinctions, Atlantis and Everything

Enjoy.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by intergalactic fire
 



I didn't know we had solar data going back 8000 years? Didn't it started with observations made by Galileo?

You are very right, but you can actually reconstruct it using ice cores, which has been already been done.
It will of course not be 100% accurate like today, but it is accurate enough for this purpose.
www.agu.org...



Cosmogenic radionuclides extracted from ice cores hold a unique potential for reconstructing past solar activity changes beyond the direct instrumental period. Taking the geomagnetic modulation into account, the solar activity in terms of the heliospheric modulation function can quantitatively be reconstructed in high resolution throughout the Holocene. For this period our results reveal changes in heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays significantly larger than the variations reconstructed on the basis of neutron monitor measurements of galactic cosmic rays for the last 50 years. Moreover, the 10Be data from the Greenland Ice Core Project ice core as well as 14C support a high current solar activity. However, although the reconstruction of solar activity on long timescales is difficult, our result suggests that the modern activity state of the Sun is not that exceptional regarding the entire Holocene. This extended solar activity record provides the basis for further detailed investigations on solar and cosmic ray physics, as well as on solar forcing of the Earth's climate whose importance is suggested by increasing paleoclimatic evidences.


graph of a reconstruction over the holocene period:

I like you wonder though what affects the sun or if it is entirely chaotic behaviour.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


The "mad plan" is being done in laboratories and computer models, where it belongs. There is no plan to deploy a large scale test of geoengineering materials.

edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Phage, thats cool how you do that thing with all of those chopped up quotes.
But its tricky...

Lets see, do you understand what the ultimate goal here is? Here,
I'll do what you did...lots of little chopped up quotes.

First Step...


But a team of British academics will next month formally announce the first step towards creating an artificial volcano by going ahead with the world's first major "geo-engineering" field-test in the next few months.


Second Step


The ultimate aim is to mimic the cooling effect that volcanoes have when they inject particles into the stratosphere that bounce some of the sun's energy back into space, so preventing it from warming the earth and mitigating the effects of man-made climate change. www.businessgreen.com...


They plan to, are planning on, its part of the project, they will then...


the final version will mimic the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions when sunlight from space is scattered before reaching the surface. www.fastcompany.com...

edit on 13-9-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

There you go again, trusting the MSM.

Your first quote is from the same Guardian article. As I already pointed out, it is not supported.
Your second quote used the Guardian article as a source.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In reviewing the description of the SPICE project it is clear that there is no intention of real world testing of sulphates or any other geoengineering materials.




Phage, from your link which is just a little snippet of the actual report, of which
the acutal Report of the Royal Society, which is linked in my OP through various and plentiful
related threads.. and in fact its the source of the charts I have posted in the OP.

You know, the one that talks about 747's being the cheapest and most effective way to deliver
the aerosols.


This report www.lwec.org.uk...



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Did you read the link I provided?

Your link is to a summary of the project and I don't see anything in it about 747s.

The summary of the workpackages (as in WP3.1, like that) detailed in the link I posted. None of which involve real world testing of geoengineering materials, only the use of the 1km testbed.

WP1(Bristol) –particle candidates
• Optical properties (RAL, Met. O)
• Atmospheric impacts [O3]

WP2 (Cambridge) –delivery systems
• Investigate delivery options
• Plan for a 20 km tethered balloon/pipe system
• Build 1 km engineering testbed

WP3 (Oxford) –impacts
• ‘Climate’ (HadGEM3)
• Biosphere (LPX)


www.lwec.org.uk...


edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 

Did you read the link I provided?


Yes, however I am not limited to links you provide, that is not a comprehsive statement
of the actual project. The actual project is linked in my OP. Which, your ignoring in
your quest to keep your tunnel vision view, that they are only going to use water.

Oh, I know that 747 stuff just makes your squirm, doesnt it. Why would they spend all of that money
to study the effectiveness of delivery via 747's, and go so far as to publish the reports?


Keith's own studies suggest that if we were ever forced to try to screen out some of the sun's rays globally, it would be more effective to spray sulphuric acid from aircraft (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043975).


fizz.phys.dal.ca...



It would also be cheaper,

costing a few billion dollars a year
according to a study by Aurora Flight Sciences
people.ucalgary.ca...





Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission
of condensible vapor from aircraft



Jeffrey R. Pierce

Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


www.agu.org...

edit on 13-9-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Thanks, i will take a look into those threads.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
It is not aboutt he water being tested it is what comes later that is horrifying. This technology in the wrong hands will be the end as we know it, or another possible end, what if they begin to spray vaccines, flouride, and anyother toxic cocktail on the dumbed down society?

No humanity, science is not ready ready to take these measures for the sake of our greenhouse effects, it will only stand to launch other more nefarious platforms into our atmosphere.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Are you talking about this link?
gow.epsrc.ac.uk.../I01473X/1
The Grant Summary?
It also summarizes the workpackages which are detailed in the link I provided. The link I provided gives more detail, not less.

The SPICE project will investigate the effectiveness of stratospheric particle injection. It will address the three grand challenges in solar radiation management: 1. How much, of what, needs to be injected where into the atmosphere to effectively and safely manage the climate system? 2. How do we deliver it there? 3. What are the likely impacts? These questions are addressed through 3 coordinated and inter-linked work packages

None of the workpackages involve real world testing except for the 1km balloon which will use water.

I thought we were talking about the balloon (or at least SPICE). But as I've said more than once, I think SRM is a bad idea but I think it's a good idea to study it.

Why did you link Jeff Pierce's Curriculum Vitae?
edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
It is not aboutt he water being tested it is what comes later that is horrifying. This technology in the wrong hands will be the end as we know it, or another possible end, what if they begin to spray vaccines, flouride, and anyother toxic cocktail on the dumbed down society?



Agreed, its a nasty mix of stuff that should be kept in the box!
They already discuss putting drugs in the water!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 




It is not aboutt he water being tested it is what comes later that is horrifying.

What comes later?
The possibility of undesirable effects is precisely the reason no real world testing of geoengineering materials is planned. It is why is it important to make sure it isn't done without much more study than has been done and without multilateral agreement.
edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom.farnhill
reply to post by burntheships
 

please some one tell me how they are going to pump water up a kilometre high pipe ?

i am sure i remember being taught at school that there is a limit in height that water can be pumped
in one go ,
now i left school in 1963 so my memory may not be as good as i thought .


lol - you sort of remember right - but not quite.

you can only "suck" water about 32 feet - ie you cannot create enough vacuum to lift it to a pump more than 32 feet. This limit is because the motrive force is air pressure at sea level - which is only enough for that far.

However if the pump is at the bottom of the water column pushing upwards then there is no theoretical limit except the ability to build a strong enough pump and provide it with enough power.

The pressures required are discussed in this thread on metabunk



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Thought I would quote this post, with ephasis in bolding.


Originally posted by burntheships


Most studies of geoengineering focus on the release of SO2
or H2S gas into the stratosphere where over time (~1 month), they are converted to
condensable H2SO4. Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting
H2SO4
allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of
incoming flux.

people.ucalgary.ca...




Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by burntheships
 


This is from your quote:

Recent work by Pierce et al has shown that directly emitting H2SO4 allows better control of particle size6 and therefore more effective reflection of incoming flux.

H2SO4 is sulfuric acid! link.
These guys are batpoop crazy!

This stuff interacts will all sorts of chemicals and creates all sorts of compounds (wiki source above):

Concentrated sulfuric acid reacts with sodium chloride, and gives hydrogen chloride gas and sodium bisulfate:
NaCl + H2SO4 → NaHSO4 + HCl

This is leathal poison gas!

These reactions may be taken as typical: the hot concentrated acid generally acts as an oxidizing agent
ibid


Well I was not wanting to learn that this has taken place. It would have been my wish to find this whole thing a really bad nightmare. However, we are wide awake, and find this!


Further digging has produced even more documentation!

My first thought in reading the above information on SO2 & H2S gas released into the statosphere was how did they do that?

Here is a smoking gun on Sulfate Aerosols in Jet Fuel!

Commentary on the Status of Climate Engineering and Discussion of Options for Reflecting Sunlight Using Soot and Sulfate Aerosols Delivered to the Stratosphere by Jet Aircraft

by Alvia Gaskill, Jr. Environmental Reference Materials, Inc. Research Triangle Park, N.C.

October 22, 2006



Option 1: Increasing Sulfur Content of Jet Fuel in Commercial Fleet

This option involves increasing the sulfur content of jet fuel for the commercial fleet of jet aircraft (around 20,000 planes today) from 0.04% to 0.6 and increasing to 0.9% by 2050. Sulfur dioxide gas is emitted in the turbine exhaust and ideally, nearly all of it converted to sulfuric acid gas and then to sulfuric acid aerosol. The sulfuric acid aerosol floats around in the stratosphere for 1-2 years and reflects sunlight. The level in jet fuel is raised each year to match increased greenhouse gas emissions.



www.library4science.com...
www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
SOx (which means Sulphur Oxides of all sorts - SO2 is the most common) as a product of jet fuel combustion has been known for decades. It is also a known pollutant from diesel - "low sulphur" diesel reduces the amount produced.

Coal fired power plants produce a heap too.

There are already millions of tons of it in the atmoshere - global production by humanity has been as much as 75 million tons perannum, reducing since about 2000 - see this thread for a recent discussion of it - www.abovetopsecret.com...

SOx is a know pollutant - which is why manyt geo-engineers are actually against using it.

Certainly it is being studied - precisely because it is a known pollutant - and yet it is also a known anti-warming agent as indicated by measurements after the Mt Pinatubo erruption.

the scenarios for using it (as opposed to slower and less polluting options) are if we hit a "climate cliff" - ther is sudden massive climate change that threatens massive causalties world wide.

pollution or not, sulphate aerosols are apparently a very fast acting gorm of geo-engineering - should we ever need them. Let's hope we do not!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Further digging (of articles we've seen before) shows this:
The Aurora feasibility study:

Far more detailed study would be needed before any method could even be seriously considered for deployment on the requisite international scale. Moreover, it is already clear than none offers a ‘silver bullet’, and that some options are far more problematic than others
people.ucalgary.ca...


Alvia Gaskill's aerosol discussion. In Dr. Gaskill's opinion the use of high sulfur fuel would be the forth step if and when that method were to be attempted.

In the order in which they should be used:
1. Sulfur dioxide release using dedicated fleet or high altitude planes
2. Run engines rich on dedicated fleet or high altitude planes
3. Run engines rich on existing commercial fleet
4. Combination of rich fuel and high sulfur on commercial fleet
5. High sulfur fuel only on commercial fleet


Dr. Gaskill is also fully aware that more study needs to be done.

Any attempt to use the jet plane option today given the uncertainties as to impacts good, bad and ineffective would have to be considered “flying blind.” But as we grow closer to a point of no return, this is a trip we may have to take anyway.
www.global-warming-geo-engineering.org...

No, it has not been implemented. Much more study by computer modelling is required. There is universal agreement on this.
edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I hate to be a buzzkill as usual but any engineer worth some salt knows you have to practically test something after narrowing down the variables with a computer, since the standard model itself seams to disagree with nature, if only in 0.001etc fluctuations in sensor readings comparing.

a good example is weather patterns, with all the recent hurricanes its been quite easy to spot they can guess a day or two ahead but some of the models didn't fit the bill at all, where as the one that came to scotland was right on for a week, which I personally found very odd.

my point being someone will eventually use this data in real world testing, personally im glad to see this project will spend alot of time working out the kinks, and this kieth fellow even said in the article, widespread use is a -bad- idea.

but then I remember the georgia guidestones and just think im probably not looking at the big picture.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsinaname
 

If climate change reaches the point where geoengineering becomes a necessary option, real world "testing" may become necessary. That point has not been reached and there is more international resistance to the idea than support. But real world "testing" would not really be testing at all. Of necessity it's an all or nothing proposition, a little bit of geoengineering would not demonstrate much of anything.

That is why it is important for this sort of modelling be done now, and that the models be validated as much as possible before even considered real world testing. There is not nearly enough known about the science.

edit on 9/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join