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.

 

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

page: 10
44
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
I'm not a geoengineering specialist, but chemistry says that it could be harmful.
Ozone is powerful oxidant, that produces free hydroxyl radicals when exposed to ultraviolet and in the presence of water vapor.
Since the sulfur dioxide will be deployed OVER the ozone layers, it should fall onto it, as it is heavier[have greater molar density] than air and ozone. When sulfur dioxide meets hydroxyl radical, it will produce sulfur trioxide and hydroperoxyl radical.
When sulfur trioxide will drop low enough, it will meet droplets of water[rain] and produce sulfuric acid[VI] as a result.
If they say CO2 is bad, how about acid rains?
Could someone with knowledge about atmospheric chemisty dismiss my reasoning?
edit on 7-2-2012 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Does anyone have ANY credible information that there's a secret program for adding anything to jet fuel to create spreading cirrus clouds?




Shhhh...


No! ( Not unless you consider nationwide spikes in Aluminum and Barium in testing,
and whistleblowers that are Aerospace veterans and Airline owners admitting they have
been involved in a secret program for over a decade doing this exact thing via modified aircraft
)

However, its not a secret, thats the thing. They dont keep it a secret, they just claim
its never been done. They know exactly how to do it. Here ya go!


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...

Oh, ETA: Lets not forget the airports, as even though its no longer a secret,
they would still have to arrange an area for staging...i.e. to add the Sulfur to the Jet Fuel.

Bases and Airports World Wide have been studied, and are prepared for
use in GeoEngineering releasing atmosheric aerosols into the air.



Regional dispersal from several bases provides fuel cost savings and particulate is
spread globally via winds. A notional basing strategy is shown (Figure 4) with arrows
indicating the direction prevailing winds will carry the released particulate.

Care is taken to choose bases capable of supporting high-tempo geoengineering operations
and with the land available to allow any ramp or hanger expansion necessary.

It should be noted that the costs of any facility improvement are not included in the cost
analysis presented in subsequent sections.

DHL recently built a state-of-the-art Central Asia Cargo Hub at Hong Kong Airport, the faculty is designed to handle 2.6M tonnes annually and required investment of approximately $1B.8
For aircraft operations, fuel burn is estimated using the mission profile shown


people.ucalgary.ca...
edit on 7-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
If CO2 is as baaaad as some say then its already "too late" and we'll have to see what's left after the crash (ice age? burn? both?). Otherwise, treating it like it is while not prioritizing the DEVELOPMENT of more and better power options seems dumb. I think the same of the Geoengineering in such multi-corporationist untrustworthy hands. When inventors like me start getting financed our world might stand a better chance. But as it is - its like Atlas shrugged and I can't even sell my passive desalination pump patent (big corp$ no want). Meanwhile Bill Gr8s is asking for the public money with a sugar coated lie in order to further his depopulation agendas.

Oh and we put 12" of rain on the Hochie-Min trail during viet-nam (cloud seeding) - and its not hard for me to intuit a means from that concept and some application of directed power.... to rain all over the whole earth, cloudy, and cooler - even icey. Maybe its already being done in secret (chem trails) and is the only reason we're not baked already. The real problem is we the public are last to know and seem prevented from having leadership that would prioritize the situations and sort them out. So hold on for the ride ahead - Fire or Ice it might get exciting!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by kykweer
 


Its not as simple as a presumption that GMO seeds can produce more crop, or
that GMO crop can save the world and feed starving people as opposed to non GMO crops.

Some information you may wish to digest.

MONSANTO which has its propietary name on the world's
GMO food supply - has designed its GMO seed and its very expensive, compared to non GMO,
also its designed so that it requires Monsantos very expensive chemical "fertilizers".

Not to mention that the fertilizers, and the Round Up needed to "maintain" these crops have
been strongly linked to cause birth defects, soil and plant disease.

Even if these GMO crops (which in the third world countires is mainly rice )
otherwise could be found to be safe, which is impossible - but - no matter if - they will "tweak" - the
studys to skew the results- a person would have to eat 16 pounds a day to
gain the Viatmain A from the rice that its "touted" for.


In fact, it has been suggested that malnourished people might not convert beta carotene to vitamin A efficiently, which blows the usefulness of golden rice clearly out of the water, as its intended recipients are virtually guaranteed to be malnourished.

You think its realistic that a person could afford to eat upwards of 16 pounds a day--
to get the recommended amount of vitamin A
???

Not to mention that GMO rice is already out of control in China, and just recently
it was published they are now "alramed" at the spead of illegal GMO rice.

There is a reason the GMO rice is illegal - its BT rice, a transgenic strain that has not been approved for commercial growing and should not be in human food, which contains a poison that kills butterflies and moths, not to mention that it is a trigger in humans for severe allergic reactions.

And the scary part is they claim they want to help poor undernourished people in "third world" countires!

Yeah, some help, some humitarian deeds.



edit on 7-2-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)


Look I'm not saying GMO foods are super healthy. And the cultivars(not sure about the spelling) aren't released around the world as a standard, sure some companies will take advantage in search of profit but they will be found out, are you suggesting Bill gates is feeding hungry people with these illegal cultivars from china?...

GMO foods are not ideal and don't contain all the necessary vitamins, also fruits I remember from my childhood, but they arnt feasible with the poor shelve life, and I sometimes still get fresh peaches and melons and paw paws from farmers that plant for themselves, but it can't be sold at a shop as the shelve live is like 2 days lol...

You can't say all GMO food are poison, its an unfair and ridiculous assumption.

My point is, are you suggesting that poor people should not be fed anything at all?

At least a bowl of rice will make them full and give them some energy to work and make a living.

Bill Gates is doing something, you can try growing organic food in your back yard.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by kykweer

You can't say all GMO food are poison, its an unfair and ridiculous assumption.

My point is, are you suggesting that poor people should not be fed anything at all?

At least a bowl of rice will make them full and give them some energy to work and make a living.

Bill Gates is doing something, you can try growing organic food in your back yard.


Well, I can sure appreciate a kind heart towards hungry people. I am with you on that.

However, sadly so yes I am saying emphatically that GMO crop ( what they call food ) is
poison. Numerous studies have proven this. Long Story Sad But True

I am suggesting that poor people be allowed ample access to non GMO seed crop,
so they can succeed, rather than being supplied GMO crop designed to fail.

Indian Farmers Commit Suicide Over Failed GMO Crops

They dont need someone handing them a poison bowl of rice, they need to be loosed of the
chains of the Slave Masters.

And yes...I grow everything I can.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.

Yes. But I think you don't realize that the experiments involved computer models, not real world testing.
Here is the referenced article.

To investigate the method, we modeled the formation of sulfate aerosol by the injection of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) vapor using an aerosol microphysics model (subsequently called plume model) that follows an expanding parcel in the plume from the time of emission (see auxiliary material Text S1).

www.see.ed.ac.uk...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


the radiation of heat at night is reduced more. The heat is trapped.

Not only, but we been paving the planet for better part of a century and all that asphalt (oil again) is a wonderful heat sink. Add the bazillion engine blocks cooling all night long and we surely add to that re-radiate thermal night mare. Do they still call the trap an inversion layer?

Phage oh wise one, you might be able to entertain a question I have been brewing. I am not a mathematician.
What percent of the earths surface is covered by cities, urban sprawl and roads, runways etc? A link will do if you know of one. Thank you.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

Sort of off topic.

An inversion layer traps gunk by preventing vertical movement of air. It doesn't prevent the radiation of heat at night. In fact it is that radiation which causes an inversion to form. A layer of warm are sitting on top of a layer of cooler air (thus, an inversion of the normal state of affairs).

I don't know what percentage of the Earth's surface is covered by human stuff but a lot more is not than is.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yes, I am aware that Keith, and Pierce and et al have never gotten off the ground
in an airplane.
( its all just theory right ? )

Unlike the Wright Brothers, who had to prove they had a working
invention to find financial backers. amasci.com...

Dont you find that to be a great contradiction in the world of science?

I mean, how in the world does this generate Millions from Gates, to these
scientists who dominate the field being on nearly every panel of nearly NGO and GO
there is... when its never been proven in the real world.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
 


this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.

Yes. But I think you don't realize that the experiments involved computer models, not real world testing.
Here is the referenced article.

To investigate the method, we modeled the formation of sulfate aerosol by the injection of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) vapor using an aerosol microphysics model (subsequently called plume model) that follows an expanding parcel in the plume from the time of emission (see auxiliary material Text S1).

www.see.ed.ac.uk...



Which is just as troubling.

Computer models are only as good as the program and data, and we don't understand our climate enough to know about all the unintended consequences, it could be a very bad scenario.

Think the FDA would approve a drug based on computer models?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew99GT
OK, this thread has my mind in a battle. I've read all the links that are posted about real geoengineering programs being proposed and many of them come from universities. I'm a die hard skeptic of "chemtrails". IMO, the only way enough aerosol particles could be deployed into the stratosphere for SRM would be by adding them to commercial jet fuel. If the military had a secret group of planes to do this, it would be easy to spot. Plus, it would require thousands of planes. IF geoengineering through the use of aerosol particles is actually happening, it would have to involve commercial aircraft through jet fuel.

Does anyone have ANY credible information that there's a secret program for adding anything to jet fuel to create spreading cirrus clouds?

It is a fact that many universities and organizations have documents discussing geoengineering through the use of aerosol particles dumped in the upper atmosphere, through a variety of delivery mechanisms. However, implementing a secret program for delivering metallic nano particles into the atmosphere is where my skepticism lies.



Think about this:

Geoengineering is going to cause horrible consequences, some we know and some we don't.

Even if they haven't begun doing it..... WE SHOULD STOP IT NOW... before it begins, or before its to late.

We need to stop all funding of this insanity... just like GMO's which are going to have devastating long term effects on our planet. Man's greed and need to control are destroying us.

Here are some papers presented to Congress looking at geoengineering::

Geoengineering should be viewed as a choice of last resort, It is much safer for the planet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Geoengineering would be a gamble. Just as there are many uncertainties associated with predicting the kind of changes to our climate from increasing greenhouse gases, there will be similar uncertainties to predicting the changes from geoengineering.

link

a tool of last resort.

link
And this one comes from Bill Gate's cabbanna boy David Keeth, see how these globalist steer all those in power?:

SRM is cheap and can act quickly to cool the planet, but it introduces novel environmental and security risks and can—at best—only partially mask the environmental impacts of elevated carbon dioxide.


In the spirit of disclosure, I offer a few comments about my own work. I run Carbon Engineering, a startup company that aims to develop industrial scale technologies for capturing CO2 from the air.

poor guys, they are just FORCED to do this... then they of course will be FORCED to implement it... making billions bedamned the consequences....:

I believe that the risks of not doing research outweigh the risks of doing it.


The idea of deliberately manipulating the Earth‘s energy balance to offset human-driven climate change strikes many as dangerous hubris. It is a healthy sign that a common first response to geoengineering is revulsion.

Ya think??? It can potentially destroy ecosystems, spread untold amounts of new/old diseases reeking habit on our climate, agriculture, health, and more!!! So he's against it right?... wong:

It suggests we have learned something from past instances of over-eager technological optimism and subsequent failures. But we must also avoid over-interpreting this past experience. Responsible management of climate risks requires sharp emissions cuts and clear-eyed research and assessment of SRM capability. The two are not in opposition. We are currently doing neither; action is urgently needed on both.


This is exactly what i was saying in my original post to phage about it... "oh it's so horrible,.... but we HAVE to do it..." so they make billions and we get screwed... these bastards don't give a damn about us. They have their seeds stored away, they don't touch any GMO food because they are rich enough to afford it.

Opinions about SRM are changing rapidly. Only a few years ago, many scientists opposed open discussion of the topic. Many now support model-based research, but discussion of field testing of the sort we advocate here is contentious and will likely grow more so.

So they hate to but they will model it, they hate to but they will test it, they hate to but they will implement it...

ITS ALL BS!!!! Read the paper, it is classic psychological manipulation.

gop.science.house.gov...


They don't care about you!!!!



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your intent:

While we do not have a smoking gun yet to prove that that mitigation is underway, this one report does indeed state that experiments have taken place.

I thought you meant that these experiments were real world experiments.



I mean, how in the world does this generate Millions from Gates

This is not exactly the same situation as the invention of a new device but because a good part of investment is the taking of risks. Gates obviously believes the research is worthwhile. Maybe because the primary motive is not profit?



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Phages link:
www.see.ed.ac.uk...


This method does not, however, alter the fact that such a geoengineered radiative forcing can, at best, only partially compensate for the climate changes produced by CO2.

Seems that the idea would only be partially effective and...


Volcanoes inject sulfur into the stratosphere almost exclusively as sulfur dioxide (SO2), which does not itself condense to aerosols.

If a volcano with its mega spigot for gas injection into the stratosphere has a hard time what hope do puny humans have?

This article seems to disagree somewhat. Based on actual eruption of Mt. Pinatubo:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


ATG,

That is the best twisting of words to fit into a hair splitter
I have ever seen.


It says:


We know that sulfate can cool the Earth......


What hair is split there?


Thats ridiculous. It says what it says.


Well I can quote a bit where it says the exact opposite of what you said. Where the bit that supports your interpretation? It's not a long article - shouldn't be too hard to show us all.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by Phage

SRM won't work? Why not?


SRM can not reverse the harmful effects (questionable as that assumption is)
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

We covered that already.


Yes and we found that you had utterly mistaken what your source for it said - www.abovetopsecret.com...

to repeat it now means you are deliberately spreading something you know is not true.



edit on 7-2-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   
I'm so happy to see read this thread and see that their scheming is finally becoming transparent.

I was going to cite a paper from this source: www.cbd.int...
The paper is in the first link listed.
Since I just got through reading it a couple of days ago after it was provided to me from another member that does not share my same views on chemtrails, upon re-opening it, the top of the paper now states in red that it cannot be circulated or cited, so I can only ask you to visit the website it is found on and read it yourself.

Seeing as I'm not able to cite the line or page the statement is on, I can tell you that it clearly states that they are going to be deciding soon whether or not cloud seeding is going to be considered geo-engineering. From their statements, it appears that cloud seeding won't be considered geo-engineering.
I can't be sure, but I'm wondering if certain operations might be placed into the cloud seeding category in order to conceal geo-engineering SRM practices that people won't be happy about.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Think the FDA would approve a drug based on computer models?

Nope. But when the models become sophisticated enough they may consider using them to authorize clinical trials. I don't think the models are considered that sophisticated.

I know that the geoengineering models are not sophisticated enough. The scientists who are developing them say so.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by piotrburz
 


Not sure about all that, though I agree acid rain looks likely to increase if this daft idea ever went ahead, and studies also indicate stratospheric sulphur could accelerate ozone depletion. Which is not good either.

www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

This is not exactly the same situation as the invention of a new device but because a good part of investment is the taking of risks. Gates obviously believes the research is worthwhile. Maybe because the primary motive is not profit?



Really? Its actually the invention of many new devices, not just one
He even says that right up front on his own Geoengineering Company.



Because major shifts in the global climate would pose a challenge like no other that humanity has faced, we at I.V. have devoted a substantial amount of effort and investment to develop ways to avoid the emissions that cause climate change. We have also begun inventing practical ways to reverse some of the possible effects of climate change

intellectualventureslab.com...


I dont see that he formed a non profit organization!


Besides, hes got the entire Globalist Cartel behind him to carry that risk factor.

I mean, there have been literally hundreds if not thousands of these "computer modeling"
studies done and nearly all NATO countries have taken up the idea of Geoengineering.

Yeah, now that you mention it thats not a very big playing feild for profit.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Incidently, tests have been carried out to see if nuclear bombs work. Does this mean we are currently engaged in a global nuclear war?



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join