It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships
No, I don't think they've made any of the advanced particulates. And I don't think anyone expects a "sudden catastrophe".
[HIGH-FLYING BLIMPS, based on existing protoypes, could support a
hose no thicker than a fire hose (above) to carry sulfur dioxide as a clear liquid
up to the stratosphere, In the calculations we performed to validate this approach
(described below), we focused on an installation capable of HIGH-FLYING BLIMPS,
based on existing protoypes, could support a hose no thicker than a fire
hose (above) to carry sulfur dioxide as a clear liquid up to the stratosphere, where
one or more nozzles (below) would atomize it into a fine mist of nanometer-scale aerosol particles.
CREDIT: David Fierstein
Improved understanding in these areas will also be crucial for informing research into assessing the feasibility, effectiveness, and unintended consequences of strategies for deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth’s environment, including solar radiation management and post-emission carbon management, to offset the harmful consequences of greenhouse gas-induced climate change (often referred to as geoengineering).
Research in the physical sciences is needed to address three fundamental questions about SRM:
1. Could SRM methods effectively mitigate specific consequences of climate change and reduce climate risks? A world cooled by managing sunlight will not be the same as a world cooled by lowering emissions. How would the effects of specific SRM techniques be distributed geographically? How well could those effects be predicted or controlled? For example, how might the injection of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere reduce global temperatures, and would this method reduce the harmful effects of climate change on tropical crop productivity or biodiversity?
2. What are the risks and side effects of various SRM techniques? For example, would stratospheric aerosols accelerate the catalytic destruction of ozone? How would ecosystems be affected by the rain-out of injected substances? Aerosol injection will diffuse the light reaching the Earth and alter the visible appearance of the sky. How will this affect plant growth and ecosystem health as well as humans?
3. Is it possible to accurately detect and monitor the implementation of SRM techniques and can we have confidence that it will be possible to distinguish resulting effects on the global climate from natural variability? This evaluation will determine whether the effects of SRM could be measured well enough to successfully manage an intervention in the global climate.
He is even going on about particles engineered to drift over the pole!
Why are you building this now?
We are not building or even planning to build the StratoShield. Intellectual Ventures is simply urging that research on geoengineering options, including stratospheric aerosol enhancement, begin in earnest now.
The StratoShield is an example of a geoengineering system that draws on existing technology and has deployment and annual operation costs amounting to millions of dollars, rather than billions. Although we have explored the general principles of how a system like this would operate, many technical details would have to be worked out. The detailed R&D is not something that IV currently contemplates doing, although if a responsible research program on geoengineering is launched, we may participate and collaborate with
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
What twist of logic?
I see that the possible impacts of geoengineering (positive and negative) are being studied along with other aspects of climate change. I see nothing indicating that the USGRP or the BPC is doing or funding any original research into geoengineering. Can you find anything thing like that?
Geoengineering is a broad term which generally refers to at least two major families of technologies:
solar radiation management (SRM) techniques, which reduce the Earth’s absorption of solar radiation by blocking or reflecting a small fraction of sunlight; and
carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, which reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by using chemical or biological processes to capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and potentially other greenhouse gases).
cliMaTe reMediaTion research proGraM
OSTP and OMB should begin working immediately to put together a coordinated program for SRM and CDR research that should be proposed as part of the president’s fiscal year 2013 budget.
As mentioned previously, some federally funded research into CDR and, to a lesser extent, SRM is already occurring on an ad hoc basis. 20 The task force emphasizes the urgent need for expanding and accelerating this research and for providing strategic coordination. We believe that ongoing but disparate climate remediation research will be improved only by establishing a coordinated and strategic approach to federal funding.
adv ˈad-ˈhäk, -ˈhōk; ˈäd-ˈhōk
Definition of AD HOC
: for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application
Federal Agencies Have Sponsored Some Research Activities, but These Activities Are Not Part of a Coordinated Federal Geoengineering Research Strategy
A study of impacts, and a bit of modelling so yes, I would say that qualifies as some original research.
For SRM approaches, DOE, through its Sandia National Laboratories, has sponsored a study investigating the potential unintended consequences and economic impacts of sulfur aerosol injection. Additionally, DOE has contributed a small amount of funding for modeling studies related to cloud-brightening and stratospheric aerosol SRM approaches at its Pacific Northwest National Laboratory—an effort that is primarily funded by the University of Calgary.
Ok. Some modelling studies. That would be original research.
NSF has funded projects relevant to both SRM and CDR approaches. For SRM approaches, NSF has sponsored some modeling studies for stratospheric aerosol injection and for a space-based SRM approach. NSF has also funded research investigating the ethical issues related to SRM approaches.
A bit here but it doesn't seem to have much to do with aerosols.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) funded a research study investigating the practicality of using a solar shield in space to deflect sunlight and reduce global temperatures as part of its former independent Institute for Advanced Concepts program.14 Additionally, scientists at NASA’s Ames Research Center, independent of headquarters, held a conference on SRM approaches in 2006, in conjunction with the Carnegie Institution of Washington.
EPA has also sponsored research related to the economic implications of SRM geoengineering approaches through its National Center for Environmental Economics.
Due to the limited amount of geoengineering research conducted to date, the experts we interviewed stated that a sustained program of additional research would be needed to address the significant uncertainties regarding the effectiveness and potential impacts of geoengineering approaches. Additionally, these experts noted that for certain approaches where transboundary impacts would be likely during field experiments, international cooperation for research would be necessary. Specifically, recent studies highlight the limitations of current models to accurately predict the environmental impact of SRM technologies at a regional scale—which would be necessary to accurately gauge potential impacts that might interfere with agricultural production for certain regions.
Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Phage
All modeling is based on real World data. They use a small scale real World sample to create a larger scale computer model.
Millions were in germ war tests
The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.
MoD test of aerial spraying over Norwich
The Penetration of built-up areas by Aerosols at night - Porton Down Public Area Biological Warfare Experiments on Norwich
During May 1963, the War Office Chief Scientist sent a memo to the Secretary of State explaining the type of public area experiments that were being conducted in the UK by Porton Down. As can be seen in the covering letter, the experiments were conducted in a high level of secrecy because "knowledge of them by unauthorised persons could be politically embarrassing."
This declassified Porton Down film, which is Crown Copyright, shows a Valetta aircraft making a number of passes in front of the camera - all the time spraying the Biological Warfare simulant - Zinc Cadmium sulphide. These experiments shown in this film were conducted during March 1958, and were conducted to determine the characteristics of an aircraft mounted Zinc Cadmium sulphide dispenser. The resulting information was then used in Porton Down's later public area BW experiments, some of which (the Large Area Coverage or LAC) contaminated vast swathes of the UK. A BW simulant is a supposedly harmless substance which mimics the physical properties of a real BW agent, in this case, size (between 1-5 microns). BW simulants are used in BW experiments in which, for safety reasons, a real BW agent could not be used.
The BW 'Attacks' on the City of Salisbury - During 1960, an aircraft, flying an arc 40 miles upwind of Porton's nearby city of Salisbury, sprayed large quantities of a cadmium compound - Zinc Cadmium sulphide (ZnCds). This compound was carried by the wind into the city where, because of its small particle size, it was inhaled and digested by the unwitting population. Documents obtained by myself in 2001 revealed that although Porton were aware of the hazardous nature of ZnCds they never subjected it to toxicity tests prior to its release in populated areas. The population were never informed of these experiments - even the MOD commissioned Independent Review of 2000 didn't include the Salisbury experiments in any detail!