Radical measures mooted as climate 'insurance'

Gday,found this and thought i should post it here.

Cloud seeding, ocean fertilisation and firing sulphur into the stratosphere are all risky and controversial ways of manipulating the Earth's environment.

They are using us as lab rats,they dont really know the long term effects,

Dr Pearman agrees there is a risk associated with geo-engineering and techniques like this could have a devastating impact on parts of the world. "Putting the sulphate into the atmosphere produces a climate change of its own," he said. "It's possible that geo-engineering would be potentially dangerous." He says a range of factors need to be addressed when looking at the techniques.

Iam starting to find the 'GOD' factor among scientists and gov hard to take.Who do they think they are?

www.abc.net.au...

I think they want to save the world by destroying the world. That seems to be the general attitude of the climatards, blow up those who don't believe in man-bear-pig warming.

this all came out in the thread regarding britains current attempt to put water into the atmosphere via baloon, the worrying part is of course what if it works and governments ignore the "don't do it widespread" part of the whole paper when it comes to sulhpuric chemicals.

like I said in that thread, I read something of the effect of "if it is absolutely necessary, sulphuric acid on a global basis would be the more effective reflectant" and my jaw droped.

reply to post by iceblue20-12


I'm pretty sure they are scientists who think that a lot of this stuff is risky and dangerous - don't you think it is risky and dangerous??

you seem to be under the illusion that all these things are taking place or something, whereas most of them are barely in the stages of having lab experiments let alone large scale outdoors experiments.....for the msot part it is all still at the "talk" stage.

and none of them resemble chemtrails anyway......

Originally posted by whatsinaname
like I said in that thread, I read something of the effect of "if it is absolutely necessary, sulphuric acid on a global basis would be the more effective reflectant" and my jaw droped.

Why? Are you saying it isn't the more effective reflectant? Or that nothing should be done at all if we come to a "climate cliff"??

The measures themselves are not insurance. They are last ditch methods to be used only if there is no alternative.

What is "insurance" is doing research now to see what the effects of the methods will be, so we know what to do if they are ever necessary.

This insurance, like car insurance or health insurance, is not something you want to have to use. If you have health insurance it does not mean you are planning to get cancer.

[yvid]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU/yvid].....
www.youtube.com...
whats verifiable????

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

you seem to be under the illusion that all these things are taking place or something, whereas most of them are barely in the stages of having lab experiments let alone large scale outdoors experiments.

How would you know what stage of development these experiments are in? You are only basing your opinion on information that has been made public. Right ????

Many studies are conducted and no results are made public ever in some cases. Other experiments release their results only upon completion of the study.

You really don't know what they are doing in the labs or the skies do you? Yet again you are here stating your opinion as fact. You are not a scientist nor are you an expert in this topic. You seem to be the delusional one.

These things are taking place and IMO on a very large scale.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
These things are taking place and IMO on a very large scale.

How do YOU know?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

you seem to be under the illusion that all these things are taking place or something, whereas most of them are barely in the stages of having lab experiments let alone large scale outdoors experiments.

How would you know what stage of development these experiments are in? You are only basing your opinion on information that has been made public. Right ????

Many studies are conducted and no results are made public ever in some cases. Other experiments release their results only upon completion of the study.

so how do you know what stage they are ACTUALLY at?

You are right that I make my assessments on what information is actually available - doing anything else is speculation.

and often the information that is made public is made very soon after it is generated - sometimes within days or weeks - commercial organisations and research organisations actually ahve a vested interest in making sure their products and/or research is seen as credible or available to consumers, sponsors, funders ASAP.

You really don't know what they are doing in the labs or the skies do you? Yet again you are here stating your opinion as fact. You are not a scientist nor are you an expert in this topic. You seem to be the delusional one.

so prove me wrong

i have evidence to back up my position - those very statements you have mentioned.

What have you got to back up your opinion??

These things are taking place and IMO on a very large scale.

Based on what? That there is no information saying that is the case therfore it must be happening??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

You are right that I make my assessments on what information is actually available - doing anything else is speculation.

so prove me wrong

Cloud seeding, ocean fertilisation and firing sulphur into the stratosphere are all risky and controversial ways of manipulating the Earth's environment.

Cloud Seeding

In the United States, cloud seeding is used to increase precipitation in areas experiencing drought, to reduce the size of hailstones that form in thunderstorms, and to reduce the amount of fog in and around airports. Cloud seeding is also occasionally used by major ski resorts to induce snowfall. Eleven western states and one Canadian province (Alberta) have ongoing weather modification operational programs [1]. In January 2006, an $8.8 million cloud seeding project began in Wyoming to examine the effects of cloud seeding on snowfall over Wyoming's Medicine Bow, Sierra Madre, and Wind River mountain ranges.[31]

Iron Fertilization

Since 1993, thirteen international research teams have completed ocean trials demonstrating that phytoplankton blooms can be stimulated by iron addition.[1] However, controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects.[2] The most recent open ocean trial of ocean iron fertilization, dubbed LOHAFEX, was conducted from January to March 2009 in the South Atlantic.

Atmospheric Field Projects

The Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program has as its long-term goal developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter. The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.

If the UN says stop experimenting that means it was happening

UN Agrees Moratorium on Geoengineering Experiments

Have they stopped??? Of course not

reply to post by MathiasAndrew



rofl - you are a hoot - I forgot to say welcome back - nice to have you to entertain us again.

So you think it is not possible to see that something might be done, decide that it should be regualted, and put laws, regulations and bans in place to preventor control it happening?

and I thought you had a good imagination

I should have realised that your imagination is only good when it comes to making up evidence and not caring whether evidence is accurate or not.

So - you never did answer this question IIRC - do civil airliners make persistent contrails??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Obviously you haven't even read the information I provided in this Link

Typical of you to not read the data and change the subject

EDIT:
If you decide to actually read the info check the links here and here

Now why don't provide proof to back up your opinion

most of them are barely in the stages of having lab experiments

i have evidence to back up my position - those very statements you have mentioned.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Obviously you haven't even read the information I provided in this Link

it's a study of the atmosphere - not actually "doing anything to it" at all.

Typical of you to not read the data and change the subject

Hmm....I think we've been here before - you punting up all sorts of papers saying they prove this or that - and invariably they do not.

I was hoping you might have gotten a bit wiser in your absence.

Let's have a look at the other links:

EDIT:
If you decide to actually read the info check the links here and here

Now why don't provide proof to back up your opinion

Wow - a Tropspheric Aerosol program!!

The Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP) described in this Program Plan will make
crucially-needed contributions to improved understanding and model-based description of
the loading and properties of atmospheric aerosols in relation to sources, pertinent to
both of these major environmental issues.

- the Govt is studying the effect aerosols have on cimate and air quality - who'd a thunk that!!

but it's still not them actually doing anythign as you claimed, is it.....

Sadly for all your undoubted enthusiam you are still looking at studies and claiming they are actually carrying out something when it's clearly not true.

You really should give up inventing "evidence" like this

Now - some evidence that things are not progressing beyond experimental stages?

How about the latest in the project to inject seawater to mimic atmospheric aerosols - that's a fairly well known one announced recently - geo-engineering test put on hold - oh dear...it didn't even get to the test stage!!

And, as usual, you haven't answered my questions - do you not think it is possible to put regulations in place in advance of something happening that you know is likely or possible to happen?

And do commercial aircraft leave persistent contails?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


In the past 20 minutes you have commented in 3 other chemtrail threads.

Now you're back here commenting in this one. It is blatantly obvious that you haven't actually read the info in the links I provided. Browsing the page and cherry picking out a quote hardly constitutes reading the documents.

To answer your question

do commercial aircraft leave persistent contails?

Persistent chemtrails ...Yes. Persistent contrails....maybe...that depends on your definition of persistent contrails

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I was able to post a section of your link showing that it was not what you said it was - just like many people did months ago when you last kept posting simlar stuff and claiming it was not what it really was.

I have to thank you for all the links - they make good reading and they are invaluable for debunking chemtrails.

Not sure why my posting on 3 threads is indicative of anything for you tho - I thought you complained about me changing to topic a few posts back, and now you are trying to sidetrack it as soon as you are proved wrong .........

Persistent contrail - a contrail that lasts more than some time depending which version of chemtrails you believe - some people think chemtrails are anything that lasts more than a few seconds, others give them 10 minutes, yet others 20 minutes, 30 minutes or 45 minutes. I seem to recall your idea might have been 20 minutes in an older thread??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I provided the links that specifically proved your stated opinion that these experiments are barely being studied in lab false.

Once again your quote

most of them are barely in the stages of having lab experiments

I don't see any info you provided anywhere that proves me wrong. Nor have I changed the subject. I merely made a new point that you didn't read the info I provided.

You're the only one who has been proved wrong here. Although I don't expect you to admit it.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Huh? the links you posted were not to any geo-engineering at all - not experiments, not opinion pieces, not even postulating any theories. They were to ongoing studies about how the atmosphere works.

This is the 2nd or 3rd time I've pointed this out to you - and I am not surprised you fail to recognise that yo have missed the mark - it is what you did months ago with a whole raft of papers you assiduously found for us.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The link I provided states in the opening paragraph

The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate:

This is exactly what the SRM and SAG experiments for geoengineering are about.

You are the one who has missed the mark.

I don't really care how many times you want to repeat your opinion.

You can say it 100 times and still does not make it true.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Your link:
www.asp.bnl.gov...

It says the focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate, and it is. But "radiative forcing" is simply the difference between radiation hitting the earth, and radiation leaving the earth.

en.wikipedia.org...

In climate science, radiative forcing is loosely defined as the change in net irradiance at atmospheric boundaries between different layers of the atmosphere, namely the troposphere and the stratosphere (the tropopause). Net irradiance is the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system and is measured in Watts per square meter.

They are studying the effect of aerosols on this. Specifically they are studying the effects of aerosols from industrial pollution. You will not find a single thing in any of their documentation that suggests they are spraying anything.

Read your own link:

Aerosols are suspended solid or liquid particles in the air that often are visible as dust, smoke and haze. Aerosols come from a variety of natural and human processes. On a global basis, the bulk of aerosols originate from natural sources, mainly sea salt, dust and wildfires. Human-produced aerosols arise primarily from a variety of combustion sources. They can be the dominant form of aerosol in and downwind of highly populated and industrialized regions, and in areas of intense agricultural burning.

Although Earth's atmosphere consists primarily of gases, aerosols and clouds play significant roles in shaping conditions at the surface and in the lower atmosphere. Aerosols typically range in diameter from a few nanometers to a few tens of micrometers. They exhibit a wide range of compositions and shapes, but aerosols between 0.05 and 10 micrometers in diameter dominate aerosols' direct interaction with sunlight. Aerosols also can produce changes in cloud properties and precipitation, which, in turn, affect climate.

They are not spraying aerosols. I know it sounds confusing because "forcing" makes it sound like they are doing something (like they are "forcing" something), and "aerosol" has somehow become a demonized word. But really they are just measuring the forcing caused by pollution.