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: 7
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SteelToe
 

Mt. St. Helens had a very slight effect on stratospheric aerosol levels.

On the other hand, the relatively sulfur-poor eruption of Mt. St. Helens (VEI 5) (2, 7) in 1980 contributed very little sulfate mass to the stratospheric aerosol layer (6). The fact that Mt. St. Helens’ plume was emitted at an angle also reduced the amount of possible stratospheric injections by this volcano.
www.pnas.org...

Perhaps comparable to the combined eruptions of Montserrat and Tavurvur in 2006.

The source for the elevated aerosol levels in the second half of 2006 and 2007 has been identified as the eruption of the Soufri`ere Hills volcano (16.72 N, 62.18W, Montserrat, West Indies), on 20 May 2006.

www.atmos-chem-phys.net...

The increase of backscatter coefficient in the lower stratosphere in late 2006 in the southern hemisphere is due to aerosol originating with the October 2006 Tavurvur eruption that appears to have been transported preferentially to southern latitudes in late 2006 in fashion similar to the 1990 eruption of Kelut (Thomason et al. 1997).
ntrs.nasa.gov...

While of lower intensity than St. Helens, these eruptions injected relatively high levels of SO2 (compared to St. Helens) to the stratosphere, enough to have a slight effect on aerosol background levels. The article in the OP concerns the effects of small injections of SO2 by less than "major" eruptions on very low background aerosol levels. St. Helens would fall into that category.

As used here, “colossal” or “major” refers to specific volcanic eruptions that have been generally recognized not only as extremely large but also as having injecting a great deal of gaseous sulfur directly into the tropical stratosphere.
source

edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Well I posted this in another thread and feel it is relevant enough to also post here so here you go....


Perhaps not surprisingly, the talk about geoengineering has fed into conspiracy theories about how governments are already manipulating the climate, or worse. (Try googling chemtrails.) Keith has received hate mail, and Gates’ involvement has fueled suspicions that a cabal of the powerful is hatching secret plots.


www.marcgunther.com...

and this also


The latest to do so is David G. Victor, a professor of law at Stanford who directs a program on energy and sustainable development at the university. With four academic colleagues–Victor M. Granger, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner and Katherine Ricke–Victor has written an essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Geoengineering Option” that calls for more scientific research and policy debate about geoengineering.



Yet, as Victor and his colleagues point out in Foreign Affairs, there’s a scarcity of scientific research into the topic:

Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce. Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Geoengineering continues to be considered a fringe topic.


www.marcgunther.com...

So now can someone explain why the experts say there needs to be more research and discussion on the topic of geoengineering yet the non experts claim it is happening now??

I suggest you read the articles that I linked to, then tell me geoengineering is happening now...

edit on 17-3-2012 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


Oh, yes all that blather defending the billions and billions of dollars every year
just on "research" alone. *SIGH*

Try as they will, the public does not take kindly to it!

They can paint it anyway they wish.



Professor Benford (U.C. Irvine, CA), wrote the following regarding the public in a Reason.com article in 1997: “…But perhaps the greatest unknown is social: How will the politically aware public react--those who vote, anyway? If geoengineers are painted early and often as Dr. Strangeloves of the air, they will fail. Properly portrayed as allies of science--and true environmentalism--they could become heroes… A major factor here will be whether mitigation looks like yet another top-down contrivance, another set of orders from the elite. source credit



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Oh, yes all that blather defending the billions and billions of dollars every year
just on "research" alone. *SIGH*


Back to the money thing again? OK.
Shall we clarify that statement? As has been discussed, out of about $2.9 billion budgeted for climate science about $100 million is slated for geoengineering. Out of that $1.9 million had anything to do with SRM.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Oh, wait. That's right, I remember. You think studying climate is pointless. What possible good could learning more about climate be? Even if it means learning about factors which may show warming to be less of a threat, like this study does. Maybe those studies which show that solar radiation may be on a downslide are wasted.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



The data is there. Either you haven't looked at it, you don't understand it, or you reject it. If you reject it you are rejecting the data which you claim is proof of geoengineering. If you reject the data you...have...nothing.

Time is on my side. I have shown that, depending on the source, from two current studies, sulphur in the stratosphere warms us and sulphur in the stratosphere cools us. That's what's called a wash.

You have tried to show that:


The study found that it doesn't take large volcanoes to have a significant effect on stratospheric aerosols. Small eruptions make a significant contribution. The spikes seen in the data correspond eruptions of smaller volcanos.

and yet the study itself disputes you in stating:

NOAA study


“Stratospheric aerosol increased surprisingly rapidly in that time, almost doubling during the decade,” Daniel said.


The reasons for the 10-year increase in stratospheric aerosols are not fully understood and are the subject of ongoing research, says coauthor Ryan Neely, with the University of Colorado and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).


and you further quote a propoganda study to support your fantasy point:

Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer


We find that, following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, stratospheric aerosol levels increased by as much as two orders of magnitude and only reached “background levels” between 1998 and 2002. From 2002 onwards, a systematic increase has been reported by a number of investigators.


which disputes its' own findings within the study itself:


However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes. These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km.


and disputes your 18 to 20 kilometer statements. Are you confused yet? The public may be; but I'm not.

Let's continue with some basic information on volcanic sulphur and the stratosphere:

Volcanic contributions to the permanent stratospheric


However, the fate of volcanic plumes injected below 20km is very different. Indeed, they disappear within 1–3 months and are diluted every winter, directly or after horizontal transport from middle latitudes to the tropics, by rapid injection of clean air (SR



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


I have shown that, depending on the source, from two current studies, sulphur in the stratosphere warms us and sulphur in the stratosphere cools us.

You have two studies which show that aerosols have a negative forcing effect. One of the studies shows that reduced sulfur fuels produce release less nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) and thus has less of a net warming effect.
 


and yet the study itself disputes you in stating:

The study does not dispute me. Because background levels are very low, it takes very little to double them.
 



and you further quote a propoganda study to support your fantasy point:
...

which disputes its' own findings within the study itself:

Is it the "two orders of magnitude" which you find strange? Do you know what "two orders of magnitude" means? Two orders of magnitude does not mean doubled. Pintubo had a very large effect. A series of very much smaller eruptions had a much smaller effect.
 


and disputes your 18 to 20 kilometer statements. Are you confused yet?

But you left out this part:

These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes.
www.agu.org...
But I am confused about the point you're trying to make. The study says that moderate, as opposed to large, activity adds aerosols to the stratosphere. I'm confused because it's the same thing the study in the OP says. It doesn't take major eruptions to affect background stratospheric aerosol levels. It says that moderate volcanic eruptions account for the increases.
 


Let's continue with some basic information on volcanic sulphur and the stratosphere:

Volcanic contributions to the permanent stratospheric aerosol layer


You didn't notice this part of the article?

For the first time, those moderate events have been detected over a long period, demonstrating that eruptions with a volcanic explosivity index between three and four and located in the tropics can be an important source of aerosols for the stratosphere, a fact not fully recognized until now. For the first time, those moderate events have been detected over a long period, demonstrating that eruptions with a volcanic explosivity index between three and four and located in the tropics can be an important source of aerosols for the stratosphere, a fact not fully recognized until now. The sulfuric dioxide initially injected at 19–20km is oxidized into sulfuric acid droplets and transported by the general circulation—also called Brewer-Dobson (BD) circulation—into the middle tropical stratosphere, forming a reservoir.


 



Volcanic aerosols


Volcanic emissions sufficiently cataclysmic to penetrate the stratosphere are rare.

Apparently whoever wrote that was unaware of what satellite observations have shown (see above) or wrote it before the data was available.
 


Rather than focusing on fantasy studies, focus on how those aerosols at 18 to 20 kilometers took up residence in the stratosphere for years.

Not so much for years. It's the repeated activity which causes the maintained aerosols amounts. The effects of the individual eruptions seems to last about a year.

You need to fix your links, BTW.

edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Okay now I am confused here. Do you believe Geoengineering is going on to stop Global Warming or do you not believe global warming is happening and what are they using geoengineering for?


I ask this because you believe the 1000 scientists that do not believe Global Warming is actually happening,or that is what I get from your thread here...

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread752999/pg1

Just needing to know so I can figure out how to reply to your post. Just to help you out I am not defending the geoengineering I am just stating that it hasn't progressed past the studying stage yet contrary to others claims.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



But I am confused about the point you're trying to make.

Are you now. If you're confused, then where have you mustered the presence of mind to further confuse by pretending that I'm talking about radiative forcing? And then you try to exclude by quoting something about something called a 'Brewer-Dobson' whatever. Is this like the Bergestrom principle causing hole punch clouds? Give it a rest with the fake science. If you and NASA and NOAA want to rewrite science to conform with inconvenient results from independent studies - go ahead. Just don't expect to fool everyone (I think that was Lincoln.) Below 20 kilometers. That's what I said from the studies I linked - care to respond?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





And then you try to exclude by quoting something about something called a 'Brewer-Dobson' whatever.


The Brewer Dobson whatever as you say is this...


Brewer-Dobson circulation is a model of atmospheric circulation, proposed by Alan Brewer in 1949 and Gordon Dobson in 1956, which attempts to explain why tropical air has less ozone than polar air, even though the tropical stratosphere is where most atmospheric ozone is produced. It is a simple circulation model that posits the existence of a slow current in the winter hemisphere which redistributes air.


en.wikipedia.org...

Oh,BTW that is real science, so before you throw out comments about fake science you should at the very least Google it and understand what it is.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

I'm confused because the article you quoted clearly states that moderate eruptions contribute to stratospheric aerosol levels. I'm confused about why you would cite such an article to defend your position.



And then you try to exclude by quoting something about something called a 'Brewer-Dobson' whatever. Is this like the Bergestrom principle causing hole punch clouds?
I don't think so, I don't know what the Bergestrom principle is.
Exclude? I didn't exclude anything, you did. I included an important part of the article which you "conveniently" excluded. You also excluded an important part of this paragraph from the other article.

These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes.
www.agu.org...



Below 20 kilometers. That's what I said from the studies I linked - care to respond?
Sure. As the article says, material which does not get lifted to higher altitudes (as discussed in the prior paragraph) doesn't remain for very long. That which does lasts much longer and ends up getting distributed throughout the stratosphere and affects aerosol levels.

Rather than picking apart particular phrases in an article. It helps to at least try to grasp what the point of the article is. At least look at the pictures.

The long-range transport in the tropics of several small-scale volcanic plumes has been monitored using these observations, which are unprecedented in their scope and detail. Their fate demonstrates the importance of even minor volcanic events on stratospheric-aerosol levels.

spie.org...


edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



I'm confused because the article you quoted clearly states that moderate eruptions contribute to stratospheric aerosol levels. I'm confused about why you would cite such an article to defend your position.

It supports my position because it is an unsupported statement.

Volcanic emissions big enough to reach the stratosphere are rare. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and by between 1998 - 2002 it was all gone. And yet from 2002 on:

Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions

a systematic increase has been reported by a number of investigators


The dilemma: plume height below 20 kilometers disappears within 1-3 months. Above 20 kilometers it can last for years.

The solution: start inching down on the plume height limits for stratospheric impact. It started with 19-20 kilometers and when that wasn't quite enough, it got backed on down to 18-20. Basically fit as you go. Then you dust off and trot out a theory from 1949:

Brewer-Dobson circulation


Brewer-Dobson circulation is a model of atmospheric circulation, proposed by Alan Brewer in 1949 and Gordon Dobson in 1956, which attempts to explain why tropical air has less ozone than polar air, even though the tropical stratosphere is where most atmospheric ozone is produced.


that was talking about ozone and you're all set.

So here's something that sounds plausible, has been adjusted to fit, and explains the doubling of sulphur at an inconvenient time i.e. no large volcanic explosions without having to admit to geoengineering and without having to blame it on China. Win - win.

Further, the tropopause is highest at the equator and lower by quite a bit going toward the poles so that a 'small' volcano would have a better chance under the 'new' science of reaching the stratosphere at high latitudes, like Iceland. And like the volcanoes in Alaska and Siberia. Yet they seemingly contributed nothing. Only the puny tropical volcanoes had an impact that outshone Pinatubo in 'cooling' us.

One more thing (and this one doesn't support my argument but for the big picture) is that these tropical eruptions could be downplayed in the media and we wouldn't really know beans about a massive explosion in say Ethiopia other than what was coming to us in the news. So there is that possibility.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 



Oh,BTW that is real science, so before you throw out comments about fake science you should at the very least Google it and understand what it is.

My comment was not about Brewer-Dobson theory whatever it is or isn't. I don't know beans about it except what I read in wikipedia within the last 1/2 hour. My comment was about trotting out theories in order to seemingly support unsupported statements. It doesn't make it real for me. How about you?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


The solution: start inching down on the plume height limits for stratospheric impact. It started with 19-20 kilometers and when that wasn't quite enough, it got backed on down to 18-20. Basically fit as you go. Then you dust off and trot out a theory from 1949:


Perfect. Because a phenomenon which you've never heard of but has been known about for decades appears in a scientific article, it must be some sort of fabrication.


Only the puny tropical volcanoes had an impact that outshone Pinatubo in 'cooling' us.

Incorrect.
Pinatubo had an actual net cooling effect. The small eruptions (combined) were able to decrease the rate of warming, no net cooling.

edit on 3/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Perfect. Because a phenomenon which you've never heard of but has been known about for decades appears in a scientific article, it must be some sort of fabrication.

It's not a phenomenon, it's a theory; actually, it's a proposal. About ozone and where it gets created as opposed to where it's found and why.

So are we done talking about kilometers? How yesterday the discharge from a volcano had to reach a certain height in order to affect the stratosphere and how today we're knocking kilometers off of that height in order to make it fit with our current observations of elevated sulphur levels in the stratosphere? Or did you have something else?

Or are we now waiting for the study that will tell us this study was wrong?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

No.
Brewer Dobson Circulation is well established as a phenomenon. It is there. It happens. It is common knowledge among meteorologists and climatologists.
www.eoearth.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by luxordelphi
 

No.
Brewer Dobson Circulation is well established as a phenomenon. It is there. It happens. It is common knowledge among meteorologists and climatologists.
www.eoearth.org...


Just wanted to show the facts of the source linked and that poster added the

Brewer Dobson Circulation is well established as a phenomenon. It is there. It happens. It is common knowledge among meteorologists and climatologists.

I did not see that text on page.


[First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth March 30, 2010; Last revised Date October 28, 2011; Retrieved March 17, 2012



This article is written at a definitional level only. Authors wishing to improve this entry are inivited to expand the present treatment, which additions will be peer reviewed prior to publication of any expansion.


www.eoearth.org...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Because something is described as a definition, it means it isn't real?
www.eoearth.org...
www.eoearth.org...
www.eoearth.org...

Or did I miss your point?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Because something is described as a definition, it means it isn't real

Or did I miss your point?


Here is a described definition, is it real.
Or have I missed your point?


chemtrail
Pronunciation: /ˈkɛmtreɪl/ noun
a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation, rather than the condensed water of a vapour trail: conspiracy theorists have been going wild with speculation over the nature and purpose of chemtrails
Origin: 1990s: blend of chemical and trail, on the pattern of contrail

oxforddictionaries.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 

No.
That definitions says "believed by some".
The definition I provided does not contain any such qualification and contains references for other material.
Brewer-Dobson circulation is real.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join