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.

 

Geoengineering proof from NOAA?

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


By all means I support NASA and NOAA and others doing pure science for understanding... but NO POLITICAL oriented science to make these globalists money and damage our planet through geoengineering.

Ok. Then where should the money for the research come from? The oil companies? I don't think so. The money that BTS talks about comes from us, by way of the government. That same "political oriented science" is the science that found that there are mitigating factors that had not been considered. Maybe that "political oriented science" will find out that the current warming trend will be softened by other unconsidered factors. But there is no way to know that without doing the science. BTS doesn't think it's worth it. I disagree.


To consider geoengineering is ridiculous. Better to switch to local community grown biofuels, solar, wind, and other renewable resources that do not harm the planet.

I don't see many (if any) who are considering the use of geoengineering (more specifically, SRM) much less advocating for it. I see a small effort to explore the ramifications of it and to keep an open dialog about it. A tiny fraction of the small amount being put into climate research is devoted to geoengineering research. A smaller amount of that is spent on SRM research.

I agree alternative energy should be explored. It is being explored. The problem is that, at this point, it costs more than what we have been doing and there are a lot of short sighted people who don't want to pay the price. Do you have the money for a photovoltaic system? I don't. Does your community get enough sunlight and wind to furnish its energy needs year round? Mine doesn't.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pianopraze
 


By all means I support NASA and NOAA and others doing pure science for understanding... but NO POLITICAL oriented science to make these globalists money and damage our planet through geoengineering.

Ok. Then where should the money for the research come from? The oil companies? I don't think so. The money that BTS talks about comes from us, by way of the government. That same "political oriented science" is the science that found that there are mitigating factors that had not been considered. Maybe that "political oriented science" will find out that the current warming trend will be softened by other unconsidered factors. But there is no way to know that without doing the science. BTS doesn't think it's worth it. I disagree.


To consider geoengineering is ridiculous. Better to switch to local community grown biofuels, solar, wind, and other renewable resources that do not harm the planet.

I don't see many (if any) who are considering the use of geoengineering (more specifically, SRM) much less advocating for it. I see a small effort to explore the ramifications of it and to keep an open dialog about it. A tiny fraction of the small amount being put into climate research is devoted to geoengineering research. A smaller amount of that is spent on SRM research.

I agree alternative energy should be explored. It is being explored. The problem is that, at this point, it costs more than what we have been doing and there are a lot of short sighted people who don't want to pay the price. Do you have the money for a photovoltaic system? I don't. Does your community get enough sunlight and wind to furnish its energy needs year round? Mine doesn't.


edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I support NASA and NOAA (I'm a NASA brat myself) and grew up on NASA bases... see my many threads like this NASA one on the Fermi satelite image or this one on roll clouds.. I'm working on a new one now. I see them as about the only thing the federal government is doing right... well at least the pure science part, not this geoengineering crap.

And I see nothing wrong with companies doing research... look at my Cameron dives the real abyss thread... Not a dime of tax payers money. Although it would be worth it if it were.

I've read everything I can get my hands on, on both sides of the warming debate and I see this as a natural warming period, so I don't support any of the repeatedly exposed bad and politically driven crap on global warming and geoengineering. But that is off topic of this thread.

If you've read everything that has been linked and all the videos in the threads we have been a part of I don't see how you could not see that they are pushing this. They are going about it in the way they historically have. On the current trajectory so to speak of their rhetoric they will implement SRM if they haven't already started. If you disagree... fine.

Point of fact it does not cost all that much. I have been researching and watching this for years. I am selling my house now, when I get it sold I am moving to a place where I can live completely off grid, building a house with a solar system and water catchment. It is not all that expensive, I can build it for less than I am paying for this house I'm selling now and be on several acres of land. If they took the billions now and eventually trillions and poured it into giving people money for solar/wind/other alternate systems it would work. Business/innovation goes where the money flows.

Right now the money going into alternative energy is in the form of hand outs to politicians friends who pump and dump the money... it's all corruption. The threads are all over ATS on this.

The problem is will, and top down control structure to benefit the rich, not technology at this point.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Great post pianopraze. Check out the NOAA GOES west sat images daily, esp the pressure images or the 4km visible etc I have zillions of pics and sat image captures going back at least to 2005 all pic's taken in the pacific northwest, northwest of fairchild airforce base, the sat images are also of the western pacific area. No doubt in my mind that SRM is ongoing and has been for some time, my first visual observations began in 1999 and I have worked outside all of my life, so not someone that peaks out of their rabbit hole once in a while, like some do whenever there is a post like this. Keep up the good work and pray that whom ever is doing what they are doing does not put us all into an ice age in short order!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Of course any research and funding has a political lean.

Historically, academics has always been influenced by popular trends and thoughts propulgated by the inner circle (or elite) of academia.

Many who have ever attempted to think outside the box in any field, and challenge the status quo of the influential Phds have been outcast and blacklisted. Only those who have demonstrated extreme intellectualism, persistence, and irrefutable work have been able to overcome these obstacles.

One has to be very suspicious of any 'expert' giving their opinion as bias can be tied to dollar signs very easily. Every Modern academic should be forced to disclose all affiliations and outside consulting contracts before proclaiming evidence towards a position.

Heck, when billions in research grants are at stake for the scientific community, they research and verify what the co. paying the tab wants.

In my neck of the woods, geological study and research is a valued commodity. I remember my Geological University profs completely dismissing the notion of Global Warming as rubbish. They espoused that it is a natural process proven by geological records, carbon dating, etc.

But, like I mentioned, mining industry/exploration, oil sands drilling, and natural gas is big business up here and many of these professors are used as consultants in the industry.

Now did they ever disclose this to the students while dismissing climate change? No. Are they right? Hell who knows.

Remember to always question peoples motivations and take nothing at face value.

Trust your instincts, and if you feel you are being fed a line of b*******t, by all means use valid reasoning. But chances are, your gut will not lie.

What I am against though, is taxpayer funding toward research, with corporation 'co-operation'.

What is becoming more common is the endless amounts that the taxpayer pays toward research and then companies using that to develop patents for shareholders gain. They get all the benefits without the risk of putting up their own capital.




edit on 13-3-2012 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-3-2012 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
There are suggestions put out that they're conducting this program, (with hosts of underlying agenda's, ie their chemical washes on the sky, when they paint they sky white to absorb or help with solar flares or cme's, also have airborn cancer agents, and overall genocidal programs, which means to me, if I even find them, they're going to deal with as murderers and they should be); but that this program is to protect earth, ie. 80-90% from devestation, and to protect their commerce, their electronic empires.

They want to bring in NWO on their terms, not on the comsos terms, they want to be in control of the paradigm and suspect something else is going on. Upgrades and interventions, less concerned perhaps with the physical dimensions we are engaging, and more concerned waking up souls and progressing them.

I have a feeling it is being done to protect earth and power grids, while dealing out more genocide, and murders, and at the same to try and prohibit the masses waking up.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Thanks for that article. This paragraph sums it up well:

How does the magnitude and rate of human impact compare
with the natural variability of the Earth’s environment? Are
human effects similar to or greater than the great forces of
nature in terms of their influence on Earth System
functioning?

These are the variables they have been and are currently discussing.

Funny you should send me that article when I just did a thread today on an article about engineering the human body to combat global warming. What aren't these mad scientists willing to manipulate?
In case the thread gets lost in the shuffle, here's a link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


All I know is this, I am 42 yrs old and when i was a kid I was always looking up at clouds and day dreaming,you know kid stuff. It wasn't till the mid to late 90's that I began to see these trails off the jet's turning into clouds.
So, either It is my imagination or there has been a drastic change in our atmosphere causing contrails to act differently or there is a group out there in charge of global weather management and dumping stuff into the atmosphere? MEH, must be my imagination



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by SmertSpionam1
 


And at about that same time we saw the introduction of more and more and more high-bypass turbofan engines.

THAT is the reason for the more prevalence of more persistent contrails.

Period.

This has been explained countless times, already. Use the key words (high bypass turbofan contrails) in an Internet search engine, to find more information.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SmertSpionam1
 

Not necessarily your imagination. It could be your location...or your memory.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't entirely trust my own childhood memories. I "remember" being present in family stories that occurred before I was born.
edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by SmertSpionam1
 


And at about that same time we saw the introduction of more and more and more high-bypass turbofan engines.

THAT is the reason for the more prevalence of more persistent contrails.

Period.

This has been explained countless times, already. Use the key words (high bypass turbofan contrails) in an Internet search engine, to find more information.

"And at about" the same time we saw more and more and more and more and more and repeat and rinse and then say it again.
Period!

When I say Period I mean Period ......end of discussion and you are all mad here.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Very very interesting OP on the dramatic increase of sulphur in the stratosphere. And once again the tired line of how it's cooling us.

Jet emissions into the stratosphere are ongoing. It doesn't take a rocket but happens every day.

My Clean Sky


About two hundred thousand people can be found in the stratosphere at any one time, sitting on airliners.


The stratosphere is very cold, and the hot gases from jet engine exhaust behave differently up here than closer to the ground.


Jet emissions are also kind of a mainline emission in that they go directly into the stratosphere unlike surface emissions.

Airplane Emissions


However, aircraft emissions are unusual in that a significant proportion is emitted directly into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere where they have an impact on atmospheric composition. This makes airplane emissions particularly potent compared to other emissions.


Sulphur and how cooling it is or isn't may soon go the way of other sunscreens and become another experiment that just didn't work out but did produce life altering effects. Another oh well moment.

Time To Take Sulfur Out Of Jet Fuel


It’s a win-win situation: Take sulfur out of jet fuel and you can improve air quality and cool climate at the same time.


Burning sulfur-laden jet (or diesel) fuel produces sulfate. Sulfate particles down near the ground get lodged in your lungs; high in the atmosphere during the day, they act like tiny mirrors that scatter solar radiation back into space. Sulfate spewed from volcanoes, for instance, is well known to cool the atmosphere. So, removing sulfur from jet fuel might actually cause more warming—or so it seemed.


The end result of Unger’s simulations is that desulfurization of jet fuel produced a small, net cooling effect.


Unger points out that the aviation industry is currently responsible for about 3% of all CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. But when you tally up all non‐CO2 effects, aviation’s share anthropogenic climate forcing may be as high as 14%.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
These same kinds of tests take place at all altitudes. The tests with rockets are the easiest and cheapest way to conduct these tests at high altitudes. At lower altitudes other methods are better and more efficient.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 

There are no tests in the report.
There were observations of optical depth.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


What you call observations, I call tests.

Prove me wrong.

Why do you post such a ridiculous argument?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 

A test would involve doing something and observing the result.
In this case nothing was done. Observations of the optical depths were made and it was found that decreased depths were associated with small volcanic eruptions.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Get a new dictionary.

They tested the atmosphere


www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of TEST

1
a chiefly British : cupel
b (1) : a critical examination, observation, or evaluation : trial; specifically : the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or rejection (2) : a basis for evaluation : criterion
c : an ordeal or oath required as proof of conformity with a set of beliefs
2
a : a means of testing: as (1) : a procedure, reaction, or reagent used to identify or characterize a substance or constituent (2) : something (as a series of questions or exercises) for measuring the skill, knowledge, intelligence, capacities, or aptitudes of an individual or group
b : a positive result in such a test
3
: a result or value determined by testing



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 

Fair enough.

Though your use of the word testing with the mention of rockets implied that you believed that something other than observation was being done. Some sort of experimentation.

Definition #1 doesn't really apply though since there was no apparent hypothesis being tested.

Definition #2 implies something more that observation




edit on 3/13/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by pianopraze
 



Sulphur and how cooling it is or isn't may soon go the way of other sunscreens and become another experiment that just didn't work out but did produce life altering effects. Another oh well moment.

Time To Take Sulfur Out Of Jet Fuel


It’s a win-win situation: Take sulfur out of jet fuel and you can improve air quality and cool climate at the same time.
....etc.....


You may find this document of interest as it discusses the role of sulphur in jet fuels, how it is measured, how it's level can be reduced, etc, within a wider technical review of jet fuel composition - Aviation Fuels Technical Review - 2006, Chevron

As a matter of math, the total jet fuel consumption listed for 2001 is about 190 million US Gallons per day, worldwide.

At 3,000ppm (the maximum allowable sulphur in Jet A1) that means about 570 gallons of sulphur is the maximum used each day - so 208,050 gal/year. At 1 US Gal = 3.79 litres, that's 788,509.5 litres. Sulphur has a density of about 2 gm/CC (depending on phase), so that is about 1,577,000 tons of sulphur burned in jet engines per year, worldwide, as of 2001.

which looks like quite a lot.

but remember that that assumes that all jet fuel is at the upper limit of sulphur content - the actual level is thought to be between 500-1000ppm on average (from that same document) - so teh actual amount might be only 260-520,000 tonnes per annum

However even 1,577,000 tonnes was only about 11-12% of the US elemental sulphur production for 2001 (from here) - that's jsut hte US, not the rest of the world as well.

And even the ocean generates sulphur -


It is thought that between 20 and 50 million tonnes of sulphur enters the atmosphere from the oceans each year.
- from here

so while IMO reduction in aviation-produces sulphur pollution is almost certainly a good thing, it is not anywhere near being a magic bullet.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



so while IMO reduction in aviation-produces sulphur pollution is almost certainly a good thing, it is not anywhere near being a magic bullet.


To be frank, I wasn't looking for a magic bullet but was rather looking AT a smoking gun.

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...


A recent increase in the abundance of particles high in the atmosphere has offset about a third of the current climate warming influence of carbon dioxide (CO2) change during the past decade


the reasons behind their increase remain the subject of ongoing research


Since the year 2000, stratospheric aerosols have caused a slower rate of climate warming than we would have seen without them


the amount of aerosol in the stratosphere has been in something of a “background” state, lacking sharp upward spikes from very large volcanic eruptions


Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade


Taking the propoganda out of these statements i.e. how wonderful it is because we are cooled and sunscreen etc., we're left with: this is recent; we don't know why; it's not from volcanic activity; it's doubled in the last 10 years.

We know the amounts of industrial and other surface pollution and what percentage of that is likely to reach the stratosphere. We know about jet traffic, as you, yourself, pointed out, and how much that is supposed to generate. We know about volcanic activity and the sulphur from that and also what percent is likely to wind up in the stratosphere. But in this case, the sulphur doubled and we don't know why.

Experiments with sulphur in the stratosphere could certainly cause levels to double and mystify researchers looking for causes. The dancing around the most obvious answer is what floors me. There's a way to do it and a way to deliver it and a way to test it. And now, verification that it is there. What is there left to look for?



posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
For those interested



25 Years of Ionospheric Modification with Space Shuttle OMS Burns
Paul A. Bernhardt
Plasma Physics Division, Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375

ursigass2011.org...

The Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuver Subsystem (OMS) is the largest engine to be fired in
the F-region ionosphere. The OMS thruster provides 10 kg/s of exhaust materials exiting
at a speed of 3 km/s. The OMS nozzle can be pointed in the ram, wake or out-of-plane
relative to the Space Shuttle orbit.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join