Double Catastrophe: Intermittent Stratospheric Geoengineering Induced By Societal Collapse

I have never really been a believer in ChemTrails.. I stumbled upon this and I was hoping to get some feedback from the more informed.


sethbaum.com...

Abstract

Perceived failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has prompted interest in avoiding the
harms of climate change via geoengineering, that is, the intentional manipulation of Earth
system processes. Perhaps the most promising geoengineering technique is stratospheric
aerosol injection (SAI), which reflects incoming solar radiation, thereby lowering surface
temperatures. This paper analyzes a scenario in which SAI brings great harm on its own. The
scenario is based on the issue of SAI intermittency, in which aerosol injection is halted, sending
temperatures rapidly back toward where they would have been without SAI. The rapid
temperature increase could be quite damaging, which in turn creates a strong incentive to avoid
intermittency. In the scenario, a catastrophic societal collapse eliminates society’s ability to
continue SAI, despite the incentive. The collapse could be caused by a pandemic, nuclear war,
or other global catastrophe. The ensuing intermittency hits a population that is already
vulnerable from the initial collapse, making for a double catastrophe. While the outcomes of
the double catastrophe are difficult to predict, plausible worst-case scenarios include human
extinction. The decision to implement SAI is found to depend on whether global catastrophe is
more likely from double catastrophe or from climate change alone. The SAI double catastrophe
scenario also strengthens arguments for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and against SAI,
as well as for building communities that could be self-sufficient during global catastrophes.
Finally, the paper demonstrates the value of integrative, systems-based global catastrophic risk
analysis.


Looking forward to seeing what people have to say.

reply to post by mrperplexed


Nothing at the link?

ok got it to work and found the page, to me it reads like a theory of why we should weigh the risks of trying to hinder global warming by manipulation rather that correction.

Originally posted by RagnarDanniskjold
reply to post by mrperplexed

 

Nothing at the link?

fixed it

reply to post by mrperplexed


If you read this section closely:

3.2. SAI Implementation Increasing average global temperatures and the correspondingly increasing damages from climate change will likely prompt increasing interest in some form of geoengineering. Many different geoengineering schemes have been proposed (Keith 2000), though each has certain limitations. For example:

And real until the next section, you see:

While modern society is quite different from these societies, it may be even more vulnerable to disruptions due to its high degree of global interconnectedness (Hanson 2008). For these reasons, intermittency is cited as a core reason to avoid SAI (Goes et al. 2011).

So this paper is a proposed event that could happen if a proposed idea fails.
I propose that its just an idea at this point.

reply to post by mrperplexed


Even though it appears this is just ideas being discussed, it's the kind of thing that makes this site what it is, so great find either way.

In fact, if you would copy and paste some excerpts in the OP, you might get a massive thread going, as this paper is just ambiguous enough to cause concern.

Like I said, I used to be on the "those are contrails" side of the fence.

Something tells me that with the Siberian Shelf emitting methane at an alarming rate, that mitigation is already taking place.

Originally posted by mrperplexed
Like I said, I used to be on the "those are contrails" side of the fence.

Something tells me that with the Siberian Shelf emitting methane at an alarming rate, that mitigation is already taking place.

What is that something??

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by mrperplexed
Like I said, I used to be on the "those are contrails" side of the fence.

Something tells me that with the Siberian Shelf emitting methane at an alarming rate, that mitigation is already taking place.

What is that something??

Just a conclusion drawn from linking information and events.

reply to post by mrperplexed


Fair enough. sorry about that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mrperplexed

 

Fair enough. sorry about that.

No apology necessary.

reply to post by mrperplexed


Baum's paper is written vague because it is describing what would happen once proposed Stratospheric Aerosol Injections were stopped. From what I understand, the injections haven't started yet.

Baum argues that SAI programs aren't sustainable or eco-friendly because it does nothing to address the cause of CO2 in the atmosphere and actually encourages increased emissions. If funding for these programs were suddenly stopped due to war, societal collapse, or even sequestration, society will feel the pain of solar radiation, especially at a time when we will need to depend on the stabilization of our environment.

Right now I think this is an idea that he's arguing against.

Currently making clouds whiter (increasing albedo) has been suggested to decrease the intensity of solar radiation, which would allow the effects of global warming to slow down. I've yet to find a link to a govt. site that state they have Aerosol injection operations.

I have found information from states that participate in cloud seeding, which is sending particulates into the air to make precipitation (not increased albedo, which is what Baum wrote about).
The Desert Research Institute in Nevada has been seeding clouds, to make snow in the Sierra's for the past 40 years.
DRI: Cloud Seeding Program

This National Geographic article, written to explain the scientific article proposed in the OP may help with further understanding the scientific article.

Why Geoengineering won't work forever

Originally posted by mrperplexed

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mrperplexed

 

Fair enough. sorry about that.

No apology necessary.

I wasn't apologising. I was expressing my sorrow that you have fallen for the disinfo.

reply to post by mrperplexed


What are your thoughts on this? I am curious as to why you posted, if not to discuss?
Do you think this paper is proof of spraying?

There is no admission of anything like a "chemtrail" plan in operation, or even in serious consideration.
The use of the term geo-engineering has been linked by many to mean the whole conspiracy of "chemtrails", but it is not. It is a very broad plan, of which anything concerning chemical being sprayed is just a small part. The more this part of the plan is studied and modeled, the less likely it will be used; it is full of enough possible adverse effects when modeled that no research I have come across yet has endorsed it. Most researchers reach the approximate conclusion as the abstract you posted......it's not a good plan.
This report is merely a look from the societal side. But all in all, it is modeling the probability, not producing a plan of action. The catastrophe would have to be so massive that:

If SAI is implemented by a broad international coalition, many of whose members have the capacity to implement SAI on their own, then the magnitude of the collapse may need to be very large to induce intermittency—a significant global catastrophe. For comparison, neither the combined event of World War I and the 1918 flu nor World War II would have been large enough

(source given in OP).

Should such a catastrophe to occur, I'm sure "chemtrails" will be among the least of our worries.

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by mrperplexed

 

What are your thoughts on this? I am curious as to why you posted, if not to discuss?
Do you think this paper is proof of spraying?

To be fair, I have never given Chemtrails a real consideration. My thoughts were that, "Why would they even spray". After reading this, I agree it is just modeling, but lends credibility to the possibility. Something I was not even open to prior.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by mrperplexed

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by mrperplexed

 

Fair enough. sorry about that.

No apology necessary.

I wasn't apologising. I was expressing my sorrow that you have fallen for the disinfo.

That is why I posted, I am open to being educated on the subject. If it is disinfo, where should I be focusing my attention?

reply to post by mrperplexed


Looking at eth sources of information - are they verifiable? Are they public? do they actually support the conclusions made? are claims of this or that able to be suported or debunked by anythign that is easy to see or observe or measure yourself??

There are a couple of classic examples: "contrails only last a few minutes at most" (or similar) is a common claim. But contrails are only water - ice crystals. cirrus clouds are also ice crystals - AFAIK no-one suggests that cirrus clouds can only last a few minutes do they?? And if they can last for a lot longer then why can't contrails made up of the same material do so too??

Another one is the Phoenix "air sample" analysis done a few years back. the folks at Arizona Skywatch took samples of particulates from the air- which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. they then had teh dust analysed for content - again perfectly reasonable. And when the results came back they said "this is how much aluminum/barium/strontium/etc is in the air" - and that is where they went wrong.

What they had was the makeup of the dust - to turn that into how much of those materials is "in the air" they also needed to know how much air they had filtered to get the dust. Eg if you have 100gm of dust and find 1 gm of barium in it then you have 10,000 parts per million (1%) Barium in the dust - but if you filtered 100kg of air to get that 1 gm of barium you only have 10 ppm of barium in the air!

Lots of water and rain samples suffer a similar problem.

Chemtrail sites tend to favour sensational headlines and are usualy short on actual source data - they often refer to each other or other chemtrail believers for thier info. wher you are reading something like that a google search for the subject being talked about can often throw up alternative information that is better researched.

Originally posted by fireyaguns

Not sure why, this above and the private message don't prove any extreme violation

Maybe too much truth