Geoengineering: A whiter sky

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

One idea for fighting global warming is to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, scattering incoming solar energy away from the Earth's surface. But scientists theorize that this solar geoengineering could have a side effect of whitening the sky during the day. New research from Carnegie's Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira indicates that blocking 2% of the sun's light would make the sky three-to-five times brighter, as well as whiter. Their work is published June 1st in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.


I cannot imagine the effect of a different looking sky on people. Certainly those born to it, will not be as affected as those who grew up with a crystal blue sky to gaze at.


Using advanced models, Kravitz and Caldeira—along with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology—examined changes to sky color and brightness from using sulfate-based aerosols in this way. They found that, depending on the size of the particles, the sky would whiten during the day and sunsets would have afterglows.
Their models predict that the sky would still be blue, but it would be a lighter shade than what most people are used to looking at now. The research team's work shows that skies everywhere could look like those over urban areas in a world with this type of geoengineering taking place. In urban areas, the sky often looks hazy and white.


Even the researchers are not looking forward to seeing something like this happen... but it appears that should the technique of aerosol particle dispersal be used to engineer the climate, according to the computer models, this would be a likely result.


"I hope that we never get to the point where people feel the need to spray aerosols in the sky to offset rampant global warming," Caldeira said. "This is one study where I am not eager to have our predictions proven right by a global stratospheric aerosol layer in the real world."


Source
edit on 1-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I have a better, safer and easier to implement solution. BIRTH CONTROL!


This type of engineering is dangerous. All we need to do is get people to stop breeding like rabbits. We are using up our resources, spread radiation and pollution across our planet. Get rid of 60% of humans and most of these issues will fix themselves.

Heck most States issue deer licenses based on the animals ability to sustain it's own numbers and not breed themselves into starvation.

Humans don't even require a pareneting license to bring in an idiot I-Product consumer............. Honestly I am hoping the big restart happens in my lifetime, it will be worth losing a few years to know that this incredible planet and some of it's humans will get yet one more chance to get it right.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Diffuse sky spectra in our simulations of geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols are similar to those of average conditions in urban areas today.

www.agu.org...

Yet another reason for this form of SRM to be avoided.

So it would be like living in LA. I've been there but it wasn't traumatic (the sky, anyway). The sky is still blue, just not quite as blue as at home. The glare is nasty though.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
I don't believe that this type of aerosol spraying is in its fullest form being used, as of yet, but I have began to notice the whiter sky already. Because I understand where and what the air traffic over my city is doing I have been able to identify when they are creating clouds and seeding clouds. They seem to be spraying more and more, now whether this is because of a critical point we are approaching in terms to the amount of solar radiation we will be receiving or because they are just curious with testing for future venture, I do not know.

Just last week they where heavily spraying/seeding to the east of my city and it was suddenly brought to my attention that the eastern provinces (particular Ontario) where experiencing severe forest fires. In roughly a day or two their was severe flooding in parts of Ontario and the other eastern provinces. The evidence is right in front of our eyes and we need to accept it as truth. Many countries to experiment or run commercial geo-engineering projects. Now whether they SHOULD be doing this is another question entirely.
edit on 1/6/2012 by TheSparrowSings because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


And, once again, it seems that one must be compelled to point out that these are merely ideas and concepts......nothing in the source article makes any other claims.

The opening sentences are quite evident:


One idea for fighting global warming is to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, scattering incoming solar energy away from the Earth's surface. But scientists theorize that this solar geoengineering could have a side effect of whitening the sky during the day.


Until, or "unless" one can prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that some sort of "active, and ongoing" pattern of "spraying" is currently being undertaken, on a hugely vast, and "Global" scale? Then, these sorts of articles continue to be mis-understood, and lead to mis-interpretations.....due, all too often, to people's merely reading 'lightly' (or, "scanning" them, in passing), then "inferring" what is not present, in the article!

edit on 2-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by Maxmars
 


.....due, all too often, to people's merely reading 'lightly' (or, "scanning" them, in passing), then "inferring" what is not present, in the article!


Where do you believe that inference was drawn? I don't recall saying anywhere that this was anything other than a computer model prediction of the potential effect of aerosols....

Are you so conditioned to to this topic as to find any discussion about the what the media reports repugnant? Perhaps a less confrontational approach to the discussion might engender less stress.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I don't really see a problem inferring that News Articles like these are just more "evidence" to support Chemtrails.

Of course that is what the chemtrail crowd is going to want to say.... cause that's basically what it is.

Are and have people been mixing Contrails with Chemtrails? Of course.... seems only normal in this stage of ignorance.

Patents to release aerosols that are over a decade old should be included in the theories of what's really going on. Are you guys going to sit here and say that not one single field test has been done to see real time and real life results?

To me .... all this article points out is the fact that "chemtrail" deniers who were so adamant a year or two ago that nothing like this could or will exist .... seem to be changing their minds.

edit on 3-6-2012 by dplum517 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Chemtrails are nothing but contrails and Internet Trolls are nothing but regular people posting comments.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I'm pretty sure our friend with the agressive tone has been banned a few times already. He has gone by many monikers. What I don't understand is how he keeps opening new accounts.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Another article.. same topic:

Geoengineering would turn blue skies whiter


Blue skies would fade to hazy white if geoengineers inject light-scattering aerosols into the upper atmosphere to offset global warming. Critics have already warned that this might happen, but now the effect has been quantified.

Releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere should in theory reduce global temperatures by reflecting a small percentage of the incoming sunlight away from the Earth. However, the extra particles would also scatter more of the remaining light into the atmosphere. This would reduce by 20 per cent the amount of sunlight that takes a direct route to the ground, and it would increase levels of softer, diffuse scattered light, says Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Califonia.

.....

Important uncertainties remain, including what size aerosols would be used for geoengineering and how their sizes might change over time as particles stick together. But Craig Bohren, a meteorologist and expert in atmospheric scattering at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who was not involved in the research, says "it's difficult to argue against the claim that increasing the concentration of particles in the atmosphere will change the colour and brightness of the sky".



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517

Patents to release aerosols that are over a decade old should be included in the theories of what's really going on.


Patents to release aerosols from aircraft date back to the 1920's and 30's:

1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists

1619183 – March 1, 1927 – Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft

1631753 – June 7, 1927 – Electric Heater – Referenced in 3990987

1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs

1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts

1928963 – October 3, 1933 – Electrical System And Method

1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment



Are you guys going to sit here and say that not one single field test has been done to see real time and real life results?


I am going to sit here and say that I have not seen any credible evidence of any testing of any "chemtrail" systems.

Edit: Nor any "field tests" of any geo-engineering systems that involve release of anything into the atmosphere by aircraft - the only such test that I know of was the British one using balloons slated for this year, that has been cancelled - www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you going to sit there and say there has been such testing? And if so are you going to provide any evidence to support that claim?


To me .... all this article points out is the fact that "chemtrail" deniers who were so adamant a year or two ago that nothing like this could or will exist .... seem to be changing their minds.


That is rubbish - there has never been any claim that I am awaer of that geoengineering could never exist - the research into it is public and well known.

Similarly there has never been any doubt that it is trivially easy to "spray stuff" from aircraft.

What is actually sad is that there is no credible evidence that it is actually happening.

and you have still provided none.

moreover you have been part of many discussion where that has been noted, and yet you mis-represent what has actually been said by debunkers and skeptics, and persistently refuse to provide any credible evidence to support your claims.

All you ever do is use the same discredited "you can't prove it isn't true" fallacy as if that proves that it IS true.
edit on 4-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


lol @ you

Your response is pathetic.

Me and others have provided plenty of so called "evidence."

Of course "evidence" is welcomed and encouraged on this board .... but make no mistake ....

This website is a discussion board for conspiracy theories. Not my problem you can't comprehend that.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Because of geoengineering the sun is whiter and brighter. Who do I see about paying for an auto accident due the sun blinding me?

Keep tinkering with the planet and it will be the death of us all.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dplum517
 





Me and others have provided plenty of so called "evidence."


And yet there isn't any of it that proves chemtrails exist or any geoengineering is actually happening.




Of course "evidence" is welcomed and encouraged on this board


Your right, but there is a lot of this evidence that is used is misunderstood and misrepresented as such.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


lol @ you

Your response is pathetic.

Me and others have provided plenty of so called "evidence."


Indeed - "so-called" is the correct adjective to use for the evidence you present.


Of course "evidence" is welcomed and encouraged on this board ....


I have no problem with you posting your "so-called evidence" - and when you do I also have no problem pointing out how bad it is.

I invite you to post some good evidence for a change!


but make no mistake ....

This website is a discussion board for conspiracy theories. Not my problem you can't comprehend that.


lol - so when I discuss the poor quality and lack of verifiability of your "so-called evidence" somehow that is not discussing the conspiracy?

do you think that a discussion board for conspiracy theories is somehow only limited to discussing the crappy evidence that this particular conspiracy exists, and isn't allowed to discuss how crappy the crappy evidence is?

It is chemtrail believers who censor discussions - chemtrails forums that ban people for daring to post that there's no such thing as chemtrails, or who dare to post verifiable evidence, chemtrail supporters who ban people from their YT channels or FB discussions.

It it chemtrail believers who don't want discussion - because any discussion invariably turns to "how good is the evidence" - and that always turns out bad for them!!
edit on 6-6-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
yeah i just watched some chemtrails grow and disperse i would of thought the overcast would of made it darker but the glare was just over bearing, inside now drinking carrot juice because im paranoid...



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I got a big problem with them messing with my blue sky and like the article here says www.livescience.com... it might cause humans to become complacent and just pollute even more "cause you know the aerosol thingy is up there doing its job so we can carry on as normal" I get the feeling that mother nature will step in with some population control measures exactly what happens in nature when one species starts to expand beyone its habitats capability to sustain it either that or WW3 is about to start to cull the masses either way I hope I am around to see our planet recover after the tipping point.





top topics
 
10

log in

join