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.
Originally posted by Goldcurrent
I know that the other more ludicrous forums do not get this type of attention and makes me wonder if they doth protest too much?
Originally posted by Uncinus
It's an attractive subject to debunk precisely because it isn't ludicrous (well, comparatively speaking). I
Solar radiation management methods work to reduce or divert the amount of incoming solar radiation by making the Earth more reflective (i.e., enhancing albedo) and do not have any effect on GHG emission rates.49 SRM methods involve modifying albedo via land-based methods such as desert reflectors, cloud-based methods such as cloud whitening, stratosphere-based methods such as aerosol injection, and spaced-based methods such as shields. The effectiveness of an SRM method depends on its geographical location, the altitude at which it is applied (surface, atmosphere, space), and the radiative properties of the atmosphere and surface.
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy
However, there are very big drawbacks with solar radiation management techniques. The climate is a very complex system and when you start messing up with one element in the system, you may end up with unintended consequences. For instance, the Met Office has conducted a study which shows that making clouds more reflective in the Southern Atlantic Ocean, can lead to a reduction in rainfall over the Amazon rainforest by 30% which could prove dramatic for the Amazon rainforest. However, there are other clouds you can seed with maybe less of an impact. So clearly there are large uncertainties on the risks associated with solar radiation management techniques.
Geoengineering - Olivier Boucher, Head of Climate Chemistry & Ecosystems
There are a variety of strategies, such as injecting light-reflecting particles into the stratosphere, that might be used to modify the Earth’s atmosphere-ocean system in an attempt to slow or reverse global warming. All of these "geoengineering" strategies involve great uncertainty and carry significant risks. They may not work as expected, imposing large unintended consequences on the climate system. While offsetting warming, most strategies are likely to leave other impacts unchecked, such as acidification of the ocean, the destruction of coral reefs, and changes in composition of terrestrial ecosystems. Yet, despite uncertain and very negative potential consequences, geoengineering might be needed to avert or reverse some dramatic change in the climate system, such as several meters of sea level rise that could impose disaster on hundreds of millions of people.
Unilateral Geoengineering
Geoengineering—which I shall take to be the deliberate modification of the climate by means other than by changing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases—sounds like an idea conceived in Hollywood.1 To most people, the suggestion seems crazy if not dangerous (Schelling 1996). For better or worse, however, it is a concept that needs to be taken seriously. As I shall explain in this paper, its future application seems more likely than not. This is partly because the incentives for countries to experiment with geoengineering, especially should climate change prove abrupt or catastrophic, are very strong. It is also because the incentives for countries to reduce their emissions are weaker. Geoengineering and mitigation are substitutes.
THE INCREDIBLE ECONOMICS OF GEOENGINEERING
Reflective stratospheric aerosols. The suggestion to inject sulfate aerosols goes back to at least SMIC (1971), Budyko (1974), and Dyson and Marland (1979). Such a human volcano could lead to to significant backscattering of solar radiation. Broecker (1985) estimated the amount of sulfur required that needed to be carried aloft by special aircraft, and how this sulfur could be added as a component of existing jet fuel and emitted by commercial aircraft, NAS (1991) evaluates various lofting schemes, including balloon systems and launch by artillery pieces. Alternatively, the sulfur could be emitted at the surface as COS and allowed to mix upward and be transformed to SO4.
Geoengineering the Climate
Owen B. Toon (2000, p. 1763) explains that submicrometer-sized particles possibly affect the Earth’s climate as much as does the accumulation of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere over the past 100 years. Aerosols both scatter light back into space and cause an increase in the number of water droplets in clouds enough to be possibly canceling out the greenhouse effect entirely (Toon, 2000, p. 1763). Toon shows satellite pictures of ship tracks caused by particles emitted from ships’ smokestacks that subsequently cause the formation of new clouds where humidity was high but an absence of aerosols had prevented clouds from forming (Toon, 2000, p. 1765).
Spontaneous Geoengineering
Solar Radiation strategies do not modify CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Instead, they reflect incoming radiation to reduce the atmosphere’s solar energy content and restore its natural energy balance. Proposed reductions of solar radiation absorption are usually 1–2% 10; around 30% is already reflected naturally by the earth’s surface and atmosphere.11 The methods are space, land, or ocean-based and involve either introducing new reflective objects within or outside of the atmosphere, or an increase in the reflectivity or albedo 12 of existing structures and landforms. SRM could reduce increases in temperature, but it may not address the non-temperature aspects of greenhouse-induced climate changes. SRM strategies would generally take effect more quickly than CDR strategies. However, once started, some would likely require constant maintenance and/or replenishment to avoid sudden and drastic increases in temperature.
GEOENGINEERING: PARTS I, II, AND III
The modern concept of geoengineering (or climate engineering) describes deliberately manipulating the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions. Other uses of the word sometimes occur.
The problem is, almost all of these clips were close up and lasted no more than a minute. In my opinion, if the contrail is still in the air and holding form over a long distance moderately well after 30 mins there's a very good chance it's not a simple vapor trail. I highly doubt different types of engines can miraculously produce long lasting vapor trails that hold their form for ridiculous amounts of time. A vapor trail is a vapor trail. When I was reading through the documents I presented above, I learned that if they were releasing aerosols the change in chemistry would cause the contrails to hold their form much longer, I think that's what we are seeing here.
Shows examples of contrails from years ago (1960s, for instance. We also know of examples from the 1940s....of persistent contrails) and directly contradicts the claims and assertions made by modern-day know-nothings.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
In my opinion, if the contrail is still in the air and holding form over a long distance moderately well after 30 mins there's a very good chance it's not a simple vapor trail.
The problem is, almost all of these clips were close up and lasted no more than a minute.
Eh I have gotten into this conversation before, probably with you. Yes, clouds and contrails are both made of vapor, but they still behave very differently. In some cases, parts of the contrail may develop into full blown clouds, but contrails typically dissipate. That is the main difference. Contrails don't have the critical mass a cloud has, they can't hold their form like a cloud does. I just personally don't believe tiny vapor trails could naturally hold their form for so long. In my personal experience (similar to many others here) contrails now last much longer than they used to, and I simply can't believe that is caused by a change in engine design, it's a change in the vapor trail chemistry.
Why is that your opinion? It seems to fly in the face of science. Vapor trails are clouds. They last as long as clouds do.
I highly doubt different types of engines can miraculously produce long lasting vapor trails that hold their form for ridiculous amounts of time.
When I was reading through the documents I presented above, I learned that if they were releasing aerosols the change in chemistry would cause the contrails to hold their form much longer, I think that's what we are seeing here.
The fuel CANNOT be altered, for many reasons that seem to have to be repeated. Density of fuel, changing weight....those would be noticed. Engines cannot just accept any foreign material, without adverse effects, damage, wear-and-tear, etc.
Reflective stratospheric aerosols. The suggestion to inject sulfate aerosols goes back to at least SMIC (1971), Budyko (1974), and Dyson and Marland (1979). Such a human volcano could lead to to significant backscattering of solar radiation. Broecker (1985) estimated the amount of sulfur required that needed to be carried aloft by special aircraft, and how this sulfur could be added as a component of existing jet fuel and emitted by commercial aircraft, NAS (1991) evaluates various lofting schemes, including balloon systems and launch by artillery pieces. Alternatively, the sulfur could be emitted at the surface as COS and allowed to mix upward and be transformed to SO4.
Geoengineering the Climate
The "chemistry" that results is well known, and has been linked to repeatedly. By far the greatest amount of resulting chemicals are molecules of the chemical "H2O".