It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Geo-engineering trial follows in US slipstream

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:34 PM
The UK trial has not yet taken place.

And the trial if it does go ahead is to test the use of blimps.

And, of course, as everyone knows, any such geoengineering would obviously take place around the tropics.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by Afterthought

From every indication, it appears they have gone ahead with some activity.
If I am to take the letter from Matt Andersson as truth, and I have no reason not to,
they have been doing this for at least a decade.

NASA papers show
that this has been a subject of Workshops going back to 2007 that I have found so far.

Several kinds of scatterers could bring about the desired cooling. The simplest and cheapest per unit mass may be substances that interact minimally with electromagnetic radiation (dielectrics). These include sub-micron oxide particles, including sulfur oxides. These materials are contained in standard volcanic aerosols and Earth crustal ‘dust’, although the particles used in solar radiation management would likely be smaller and without chemical impurities. As such, they may be safe, since materials, such as sulfate and ash, are relatively well understood as one can predict with confidence how their properties change throughout their months-to-years travel time through the stratosphere. The surface properties of other materials must be studied to determine their response to the very acidic and oxidizing environment, in the presence of highly energetic ultraviolet light. Alternatives to dielectrics have been suggested, such as metallic or resonant particles (see, for example, Teller, 1997). Metals interact with electromagnetic radiation strongly and might conceivably require much less particle mass than would non-conducting (dielectric) particles.NASA

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by burntheships

I'm in full agreement. I've read enough evidence to know that they are conducting operations, but no matter how much evidence you show some people, they keep their blinders on.

The government knows that they are going to have a very angry majority once they announce that geo-engineering is underway and they're scared. Their fear is probably one of the main reasons that people such as you and I are left to be called nutjobs because the government has gone ahead with their plans and don't have the cajones to admit it until they are backed into a corner, which needs to be done. They have to be forced to admit that they have been doing this tinkering for years and they will have to listen to the people they work for and stop all their projects before it's too late.
I realize that some people are all for geo-engineering, but I'd much rather see our current technology get cleaned up before we start using stuff that we have no idea about.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by Afterthought

Short of a multitude of whislteblowers all at once, I agree there is hardly a way to
convince some. Several have come forward, like this one...and you saw what happened here.

Best for the skeptics to keep mouths shut on stuff like this. Funny how they are always
saying there are no aircraft that can accomplish this...

Well, I have found a study that suggests many aircraft are suitable, and even suggests that
the Military could carry this out without any problem whatsoever.
Well that study may not have, but this study did.

4.1. Airplanes

Existing small jet fighter planes, like the F-15C Eagle (Figure 2a), are capable of flying into the lower stratosphere in the tropics, while in the Arctic, larger planes, such as the KC-135 Stratotanker or KC-10 Extender (Figure 2b), are capable of reaching the required altitude. Specialized research aircraft such as the American Lockheed ER-2 and the Russian M55 Geophysica, both based on Cold War spy planes, can also reach 20 km, but neither has a very large payload or could be operated continuously to deliver gases to the stratosphere.

The Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk can reach 20 km without a pilot but costs twice as much as an F-15C. Current designs have a payload of 1-1.5 tons. Clearly it is possible to design an autonomous specialized aircraft to loft sulfuric acid precursors into the lower stratosphere, but the current analysis focuses on existing aircraft.

Options for dispersing gases from planes include the addition of sulfur to the fuel, which would release the aerosol through the exhaust system of the plane, or the attachment of a nozzle to release the sulfur from its own tank within the plane, which would be the better option. Putting sulfur in the fuel would have the problem that if the sulfur concentration is too high in the fuel, it would be corrosive and affect combustion. Also, it would be necessary to have separate fuel tanks for use in the stratosphere and in the troposphere to avoid sulfate aerosol pollution in the troposphere.

The military has already manufactured more planes than would be required for this geoengineering scenario, potentially reducing the costs of this method. Since climate change is an important national security issue [Schwartz and Randall, 2003], the military could be directed to carry out this mission with existing aircraft at minimal additional cost. Furthermore, the KC-135 fleet will be retired in the next few decades as a new generation of aerial tankers replaces it, even if the military continues to need the in-flight refueling capability for other missions.

Unlike the small jet fighter planes, the KC-135 and KC-10 are used to refuel planes mid-flight and already have a nozzle installed. In the tropics, one option might be for the tanker to fly to the upper troposphere, and then fighter planes would ferry the sulfur gas up into the stratosphere (Figure 2b). It may also be possible to have a tanker tow a glider with a hose to loft the exit nozzle into the stratosphere.

edit on 8-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:52 PM
A Short video discussing different methods of geoengineering the earth atmosphere,
one suggestion is for extra sulfur to be added to the jet fuel of commercial airliners.
Is this a suggestion for the future or is it already be happening?

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
This video address the idea of Easy Jet's History of Adding Additional Sulfer to Jet Fuel

Easy Jet Airlines Spraying Europe. Asia & Africa

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Oh, geeze......your "Letter to the Editor" from "Matt Andersson"?

This hoax, yet again? .....even if what was claimed as written by him actually did come from him, then there is a mental problem on his part, if he actually believes that nonsense.

His "claims" are demonstrably wrong.....but have been taken up by the worst of the "chemtrail"hoax and myth pushers.

This topic is heavily infested with "bogosity".......

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by ProudBird

The only hoax is the one you perpetuate.


You mumble to yourself like that often?
Its ok, we understand cognitive dissonance here at ATS.

edit on 8-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by burntheships

You have no reason to doubt that a letter to the editor, allegedly from the CEO of a defunct company is not the truth. A letter with absolutely no evidence that it was written by who it is claimed it was written by. Your standards of evidence are quite low.

Too bad that the the editor who decided to print the letter couldn't have done some checking on such a huge claim. It seems that it would be warranted. It seems that such an amazing case of whistleblowing would have led to some actual evidence. It seems like such a scoop.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Phage
CEO of a defunct company

You sure about that? Have anything besides your opinion to back that up?

They sure look operational to me.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:38 PM
reply to post by burntheships

I find it funny that you only post what you think is going to back your assumptions, because you seem to have missed something.....

Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land-based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but produce regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and make skies less blue. Furthermore it would hamper Earth-based optical astronomy, do nothing to stop ocean acidification, and present many ethical and moral issues. Further work is needed to quantify many of these factors to allow informed decision-making.

That doesn't sound like it would be a good idea to produce droughts and deplete the ozone any more than it already has been depleted. It would also cause more problems than it would solve. And what about solar power,you do know that it depends on the sun to work so if you stop the sun from shining down on earth solar power would be useless. But I am sure you know that already,right?

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:45 PM
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

Oh, we agree comepletely, geoengineering would destroy the natural
balance of the atmosphere, potentially devastating planet earth.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:48 PM
reply to post by burntheships

The letter is signed by the "President" of Indigo Aerospace, Inc. not Indigo Airlines.

Yes, I'm sure.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:53 PM
reply to post by Phage

I think your all mixed up, sorry.
If its the same Matt Andersson.

Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Matt Andersson is the President of Aviation Development Holdings and the Founder of Indigo Airlines, backed by American Express and McKinsey & Company. He has been featured in the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Fortune, Time Magazine and BBC Radio. A jet-rated pilot and University of Chicago M.B.A.,

Google Amazon Book Results

edit on 8-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
From 1969:

Charlson and colleagues have shown that the cooling effect of sulfate aerosols does not neatly cancel out the effects of greenhouse warming, but rather, makes the situation more complex. "Aerosol cooling and the greenhouse effect have characteristics that prevent them from neatly offsetting each other," note Charlson and colleague Tom Wigley, who heads the Office for Interdisciplinary Earth Studies at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

First, the cooling and warming occur mostly over different parts of the world: the aerosol effect is focused over industrial areas in the Northern Hemisphere, whereas warming effects may be greatest over subtropical oceans and deserts. There are also temporal variations. Aerosol effects are most pronounced during daylight hours during the summer season; the activity of greenhouse gases differs very little over the course of a day, or over a year.

The work of Charlson and colleagues suggests that forcing by sulfate aerosol is not evenly distributed over the globe--it can vary by roughly a factor of five from region to region. As a result, the world might expect to see dramatic changes in regional weather patterns in the future, not just an increase in average global temperature.

Considering the ramifications stated above and the history of our "leaders", I don't trust this type of technology to be in their hands.

Here's something I didn't know (from the same source):

Sulfate aerosol was named by the journal Science as one of nine runners-up for Molecule of the Year in 1995.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by burntheships

So Matt Anderson is running an airline in India?

Your link:

Basically, IndiGo airlines is a private airliner. It is a low-cost airlines based at Gurgaon in an Indian state of Haryana. Its main base is Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi, the capital city of India. IndiGo operates domestic flights daily linking over 17 destinations.

It may be the same Matt Anderson but Indigo Aerospace (which is how "Anderson" signed the letter) is defunct and was defunct when the letter was published. I don't think the real Matt Anderson wrote that letter. As I said, too bad The Financial Times! didn't follow up on such an amazing claim.

edit on 2/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Then why in the world would they do this knowing the possible effects? They are doing studies to understand those effects and are nowhere close to actually implementing geoengineering on any large scale.

Environmentalists said geo-engineering went against the spirit of the Nagoya talks, which aims to set new targets for 2020 to protect nature, such as setting up more land and marine protected areas, cutting pollution and managing fishing. "We are certainly in favor of more (geo-engineering) research, as in all fields, but not any implementation for the time being because it's too dangerous. We don't know what the effects can be," said Francois Simard of conservation group IUCN. "Improving nature conservation is what we should do in order to fight climate change, not trying to change nature."

So it seems to me that there is research that will be going on, but there is no implementation of any geoengineering happening at this time.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by Phage

You know your sitting there looking pretty silly. Who are you?

Matt Andersson wrote that letter. You dont like it, take it up with him.
He signed his name to it.

He is also the author of the book The New Airline Code.

From the back of that book, about the author. He is also a jet-rated pilot.
It states right there he has been featured in The Financial Times.

Amazon Books

You maybe are just intimidated that he is so accomplished, yet truthful.

edit on 8-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
Here is the main problem I'm seeing:

Why not carry on burning fossil fuels, and instead reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly? Better still, allow CO2 levels to rise but restrict the sunlight hitting the earth’s surface.

Instead of spending the money on releasing, developing, and using cleaner technology that they've known about for decades, they would much rather keep everyone addicted to fossil fuels.

"Why?" I ask.

The only reason I can come up with is because geo-engineering will enable them to use the same technology for weather warfare and any other nefarious projects they can think up. It's much more advantageous for THEM (*cough* Haliburton *cough* among others *cough*) to keep us in the dark ages with fossil fuels as the excuse for global warming and geo-engineering. As soon as they get the OK to begin using this technology for "good", they will have free reign to use it however they see fit in the name of national, or even international, security.

At this moment, China is leading in developing and using solar power technology. Well, as soon as we start global dimming, that will take care of that problem, now won't it?

See how it works? It will begin as something as tiny as blocking out one nation's sunlight before it explodes into triggering greater angst leading to explosive upheaval.

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 06:19 PM
reply to post by Afterthought

The article is not from 1969, which would be obvious if you had read the footnotes.

Yes, it points out that there is a lot to be learned about climate and how various things affect it. Without much more about it, it is too dangerous to be used.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in