[b]What Aerial Geo Engineering can do -- Is it Good or Bad[/b]

reply to post by fireyaguns

As you know science changes its mind because the science changes so the facts and evidence must also change with them right?

No. The science changes when new evidence is found.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
We should not sit around no, no, no, we should not harness whatever this power is you’re talking of (HAARP maybe?)

The power I talk about wielding is the power of Nature it's self, HAARP is a speculation of using that power. And if we have this power would you rather someone else use it? See my Sun Tzu statement below.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
As you know science changes its mind because the science changes so the facts and evidence must also change with them right? Is this not the way of the force we are up against?

That is the great thing about science is it's ability to change when new facts present themselves instead of denying the evidence presented.

But let's stay on topic. You asked if Aerial Geo Engineering is Good or Bad. I think it has the potential for both. Even Sun Tzu knew that weather would affect the outcome of battles and those that had the knowledge of the season would be able to defeat an opponent using Nature against them.

reply to post by abeverage

You asked if Ariel Geo Engineering is Good or Bad. I think it has the potential for both.

Yes. The potential for unexpected consequences is present. That's why no one advocates for undertaking any use of the techniques without much more research

There is also the fact that it would have no effect on other problems caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fireyaguns

 

As you know science changes its mind because the science changes so the facts and evidence must also change with them right?

No. The science changes when new evidence is found.

By your theory science is fact at present only but is subject to change upon new evidence, Right?

Clearly science is only as good as the information it has to work with Yes.
This makes science inadequate, due to not having all the information to start with. Scientist tells us they have the facts but they don’t..

Science, it’s mans interpretation only, and often very misleading.

reply to post by fireyaguns

By your theory science is fact at present only but is subject to change upon new evidence, Right?

That's not my theory. That's pretty much the definition of science.

Clearly science is only as good as the information it has to work with Yes.

Yes.

This makes science inadequate, due to not having all the information to start with.

Seems to work pretty well. This here computer and internetz thingy is the result of science, not superstition.

Scientist tells us they have the facts but they don’t..

Scientists tell us they have some facts. Just because they don't know everything doesn't mean they don't know anything. They also tell us, when it comes to SRM, not enough is known about it yet to even consider doing it.

Science, it’s mans interpretation only, and often very misleading.

Mostly for people who don't understand it.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage

 

You asked if Ariel Geo Engineering is Good or Bad. I think it has the potential for both.

Yes. The potential for unexpected consequences is present. That's why no one advocates for undertaking any use of the techniques without much more research

There is also the fact that it would have no effect on other problems caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Several proposed methods of Aerial (not sure why I spelled it like the mermaid) Engineering do nothing to increase CO2. In fact Stratospheric Aerosols are supposed to reduce CO2.

And when it comes to the Military I am not entirely convinced they would not try to harness this with or without proper research if the process was proven to be effective against a hostile country, regardless of any unexpected consequences.

reply to post by fireyaguns


Wrong. Science advances and expands man's thinking. For example, elements can be added to the Periodic Table, but nothing is taken off. And science is repeatable.
This differs from speculation, which is only a mental exercise, therefore different from person to person.
When someone speculates, for example that geo-engineers are putting a new element into the atmosphere by way of jets, lets say one called "Bullshiorium" or "Bs" , then you would have to test for "Bs". Not just once, but many times, in many different places, under many different conditions. And then you have to show that "Bs" is only found in the atmosphere behind aircrafts, and not any other place. Only then can your hypothesis go beyond just speculation.
It is why there is an order to science studies. A scientist makes a hypothesis then defines how he can attempt to prove that hypothesis. He will give exacting details of his work, down to the equipment used in some cases. He shows many results, shows all his work, and then reaches a conclusion. But it doesn't stop there. Next it is up for peer review, where other scientists attempt to prove the conclusion they reach would be the same. Or not (which can be brutal). Only then is the original hypothesis declared "Science-worthy."
Speculation is just a guess.

reply to post by abeverage

Engineering do nothing to increase CO2. In fact Stratospheric Aerosols are supposed to reduce CO2.

I didn't say it increases CO2. Your link says nothing about reducing CO2 because it does not do so. That's the problem.

reply to post by Phage

That's not my theory. That's pretty much the definition of science.

Pretty much Sounds like your opinion again. Not realy solid anything.

reply to post by fireyaguns


Ok.
That is the definition of how science works.
Happy now?
physics.ucr.edu...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage

 

Engineering do nothing to increase CO2. In fact Stratospheric Aerosols are supposed to reduce CO2.

I didn't say it increases CO2. Your link says nothing about reducing CO2 because it does not do so. That's the problem.

Yes I misread what you wrote sorry. And they should be counteracting the effects of CO2 not reducing them.

reply to post by stars15k


Thank you for that fine input.Are you leaning a little too strongly towards science though considering science is always changing or is it the facts? I don’t know, you all seem a little confused too, maybe its fact and science that are conflicting.

reply to post by abeverage

And they should be counteracting the effects of CO2 not reducing them.

Counteracting only the warming effects. Nothing about ocean acidification.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by fireyaguns

 

Ok.
That is the definition of how science works.
Happy now?
physics.ucr.edu...

edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks but really how science works is not what I am asking for.

I am asking:
When did Aerial Geo Engineering first become an Idea and who is responsible for bringing it to the table?

How many Aerial Geo Engineering applications are we privileged to know about to date can they all be put up on this thread to be looked into deeply?

What is each Aerial Geo Engineering application one for, the idea of its use?

How does each Aerial Geo Engineering application achieve its purpose?

By what devices are the Aerial geo Engineering applications delivered to the targeted areas?

What are the substances used for Aerial Geo Engineering operations?

Is anyone, principal, or agent financing research and or experimenting, and or contracting to carry out any aspect of Aerial Geo Engineering?
If so, Who?

Looking forward to your input,
Fireyaguns

reply to post by fireyaguns

Thanks but really how science works is not what I am asking for.

But you did.

By your theory science is fact at present only but is subject to change upon new evidence, Right?

When did Aerial Geo Engineering first become an Idea and who is responsible for bringing it to the table?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How many Aerial Geo Engineering applications are we privileged to know about to date can they all be put up on this thread to be looked into deeply?

All of them. Yes, they can be put in this thread.

What is each Aerial Geo Engineering application one for, the idea of its use?

They all fall into the category of Solar Radiation Management. Broad subcategories include albedo enhancement and infrared scattering. Proposed techniques range from the dispersal of stratospheric aerosols to shiny balloons to reflect sunlight.

How does each Aerial Geo Engineering application achieve its purpose?

They all have the same goal, the reduction of radiative forcing

By what devices are the Aerial geo Engineering applications delivered to the targeted areas?

Proposals range from aircraft to balloons and ships.

What are the substances used for Aerial Geo Engineering operations?

Proposals include sulfuric acid, metallic particles, engineered particles, salt water...it goes on.

Is anyone, principal, or agent financing research and or experimenting, and or contracting to carry out any aspect of Aerial Geo Engineering?
If so, Who?

There a few organizations involved with research. I don't know of any who are implementing any form of Aerial geoengineering.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by stars15k

 

Thank you for that fine input.Are you leaning a little too strongly towards science though considering science is always changing or is it the facts? I don’t know, you all seem a little confused too, maybe its fact and science that are conflicting.

No we are not confused. Fact and science go hand in hand and always have. Science does not change, our understanding does. When we find a new element, like "Bs" for example, it doesn't mean it's "new". It just means no one has been able to detect it before, but science has advanced so it is found now.
Again it is the difference in speculation and science.
When someone first trained a telescope at Mars capable of showing more detail than just a red disk, they saw dark lines snaking all over the surface. They speculated that they were canals, which meant water, which meant life.
Better telescopes, space crafts sent to orbit Mars, and now rovers on Mars, are all advances of science that show the previous speculation was wrong.
Saying that "chemtrails "aerial geo-engineering" is going on now is speculation. Tests of the atmosphere show nothing not expected, therefore there is no proof any aerial geo-engineering is actually taking place.
Perhaps there really is an element, Bs, and someone really is putting it into the atmosphere......to what effect? Soundings and record keeping have not sounded any alerts that something outside the norm is happening.
All the reports are showing that the scientists, who understand better than you or I ever hope to, say it is not going on, should be approached with caution, and will probably not be done.
So is it being done? No. No evidence to the contrary has been produced. That is important. Facts requires evidence.
Will it be done? Probably not, for many reasons.
Is it good or bad? We don't know because we haven't tried it yet. Modeling says most likely Bad. I'll go with that.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage

 

And they should be counteracting the effects of CO2 not reducing them.

Counteracting only the warming effects. Nothing about ocean acidification.

Couldn't you then say by proxy we are doing Aerial Geo Engineering with Planes by dumping exhaust into the atmosphere? Just not planned or actively...

reply to post by abeverage

Couldn't you then say by proxy we are doing Aerial Geo Engineering with Planes by dumping exhaust into the atmosphere? Just not planned or actively...

Yes. We are also doing it with our factories and automobiles. The trouble is, it is geoengineering which contributes to warming.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by abeverage

 

Couldn't you then say by proxy we are doing Aerial Geo Engineering with Planes by dumping exhaust into the atmosphere? Just not planned or actively...

Yes. We are also doing it with our factories and automobiles. The trouble is, it is geoengineering which contributes to warming.

edit on 3/7/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Kind of interesting to see you take this side Phage.

reply to post by abeverage

Kind of interesting to see you take this side Phage.

What side?
What's interesting? Did something give you the idea that I'm in favor of pollution?