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.

 

Geo-engineering no Holy Grail - study

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   
This is why I feel that chemtrails are a distraction to a much bigger issue.

This article mirrors my feelings that any geo-engineering solution could be a disaster and our current fear of warming may be nothing compared to the repercussions of a "solution".


Far from offering a simple fix, sci-fi solutions to global warming may in fact make the problem worse, a probe of "geo-engineering" options said on Tuesday.

Once mocked as unscientific, geo-engineering proposals are gaining traction as carbon emissions soar, placing Earth on track for warming of maybe four degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

Ideas, mainly experimental or untested, include building mirrors in space to reflect the Sun's rays or growing plankton to boost absorption of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2).

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AwrBJR9u3QxTs3EAcV7QtDMD

And here is the main issue. SRM.


Even with the technologies combined and applied to the widest extent possible, these options would not prevent mean surface temperatures from rising beyond 2C target if CO2 emissions continue as they are, the simulation found.

- 'Abject stupidity' -

The side effects "could be as bad as the climate change effects that they are trying to prevent," Keller warned.

The study found that SRM was the only method with the potential to swiftly reduce warming.

But it also had some of the largest potential side effects, such as changing rain patterns -- and could never be stopped without instantly warming the planet.


I think that discussions should be taking place. People should be watching for this type of thing. I also think that jumping to conclusions with not basis for said conclusion will help nothing and only cloud the issue.

Please, understand contrails so the insane worry over something that doesn't exist won't mask the real issues.

I will re-iterate that this forum should be split and Geo-engineering should be by itself. (IMHO)




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Another vote here for 'Abject stupidity'. It seems ridiculous to me to put more stuff into the atmosphere to counter the stuff we've been putting into the atmosphere and I hope it never has to come to that



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 


I just think that the common sense discussions about this kind of show that this is not anywhere near taking place yet. Sadly, the ideas are gaining ground.

But if the people who worry so much about chemtrails would put their energy into voicing their opinions about this not being a good direction, maybe the ideas wouldn't be gaining as much ground.


I don't have a solution, but with enough minds on the same page, I feel like someone could find a good direction.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


Climate change via global heating ins not a settled science despite what liars say about what is causing it. So let's have something like the old International Geophysical Year of 1957 where the best minds from all countries set about determining the real causes. Surely, that is the first requirement before any action commences. Why waste time and efforts attempting to stop and eliminate human causes of the problem when they may be irreverent to a larger cause such as solar radiation (which seems to be a fairly damning case)?

As it stands, the proponents of a human cause seem to dwell on reducing emissions on the modern western countries that have done much in reducing emissions (especially of autos and aircraft) over the decades. To China and others an almost free pass is handed out because, you know, we should let them grown to gain economic parity before we slap them down to our level of emission controls. That strategy is more tied to a political correctness of this "equality" business of the UN than to where the worst aspects of the problem lays. The decline in manufacturing (and jobs) in the West in the last three decades certainly have reduced emissions by huge amounts. Where is credit for that and why should the West pay for gross emissions in other countries? The real driving force in allowing the lesser developed countries to blame us--and for us to blame ourselves--for the problem is not hard to discern. The governments in decline in the West know a juicy tax when they see one and applying a cost to every aspect of life even breathing in the form of an all-encompassing carbon tax makes their mouths water. As with any blanket tax on the entirely citizenry, major portions of those enormous funds will be bleed off to other uses outside of those seemingly stipulated in the reason for the tax.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


You get the big picture. I wish more of those in charge understood as you do.
Regardless of who or what is to blame for our issues, we have issues. We pollute too much, we don't do enough to replenish the de-forestation problem. We put dollars in front of nature. We could spend the next 50 years bitching about who's to blame for the global temps, and that alone will solve nothing. If we try to manufacture nature, we may find that we screwed up way more than we could ever dream of fixing.

But, if we look at where our biggest polluters are right now, and try to change that, we may make the future a bit brighter.
We didn't cause all the problems overnight, so nothing is going to get fixed overnight, but over time, if we do something smart about the pollution, we will make a difference. Everyone wants results right now, and that's not likely.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

smurfy
There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.


Step 1, identify what a chemical contrail is and what's in it.

Step 2, figure out who is spraying it.

Step 3, file charges as what you describe is against international law.

But if you cannot get past step 1, there may be a very good reason.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The volcanoes erupting lately around the world will help cool the earth. The earth has a sort of built in safeguard, the eruptions can cool the earth. I think that they were a tad bit more right back in the fifties, looking at the big picture.

The scientists that are toying with geo-engineering are talking the governments into funding their projects so they can make a job for themselves with high pay and money to do their research. This is possibly not necessary, but you also need to understand that the warmer we make the earth the more eruptions and the more energy in the crust. This will result in a quickening of the earth and plate movement also.

We need to keep our emissions in check and also stop dumping toxins into the environment that jeopardize our food supply. We should not take risks with putting nuclear power plants in areas where there is even a risk of seismic activity or tsunamis. We should not deforest the earth for profits stemming from consumerism, these trees our our friends. We need to lessen our waste and throw consumerism to the lions. Death dating, or planned obsolescence, is a sin.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

smurfy
There ain't nobody going to tell me to put chemical contrails aside as a different issue because they are not, chemical contrails themselves are one of the best deliverers of heavier-than-air CO2 into the atmosphere.


That does seem to be the general feeling and I'd agree with you 100%. They're merged and overlapping issues, not because we say so but because those doing this for a living say so in how they look at the options to alter the climate by deliberate action.

If it weren't right out on the table as among the viable options, it would be more debatable. Since it is, it's a perfect marriage of the two closely inter-related topics.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


But the proposed idea of spraying for SRM purposes is just that, an idea. As I said, if it was actually happening, it's against international law. And there would be some sort of evidence.

If someone finds the evidence, then by all means, we need to make as much noise as possible and try like hell to shut it down.

But the counter productive complaining about something that isn't happening does nothing.(IMHO)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It was the observations of the chemical plowing of our skies over the years that revealed the geo-engineering scheme, which has been going on for some time.

Unfortunately you and others here will fail at separating the two, especially when you start threads that in my opinion are meant to be combative.

Geo-engineering is a lot more dangerous to our environment than just letting the forces of nature correct what ever ills she is feeling.

Between geo-engineering and fracking, we are pretty much screwed.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 

Yup. Fracking = continuing release of greenhouse gasses, though less CO2 probably more methane.
Geoengineering (like cutting down forests).

We're screwed.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Good Morning Phage,

Kinda like a dog chasing it's tail, don't ya think?



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 



But the counter productive complaining about something that isn't happening does nothing.(IMHO)


I agree, to a point. Everything in moderation....even debunking other topics, eh?


Still, who is to say nothing is happening? Are any of us in such a position of high authority and clearance for information to know, as a fact, this isn't happening and has never happened? I've read both sides of the argument as it's carried on and on, and it's interesting to watch when folks aren't directly tearing at each other. Either side makes good points, neither side has the evidence needed to 'close the deal' on a definitive statement of Yeah or Neigh and it makes for ongoing discussion which is never boring.

We all have our rights to an opinion though, naturally, and I'm certainly of the opinion that they aren't discussing SRM techniques at the level of United Nation gatherings for policy consideration....if someone, somewhere hasn't done it to show it's more than a pipe dream with no real chance of working on a basic level.

I can't be sure tho...the same as no one can much prove a negative to say it hasn't happened. That's what makes the topic so interesting.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 




if someone, somewhere hasn't done it to show it's more than a pipe dream with no real chance of working on a basic level.

SRM has been "done":
i51.tinypic.com...

SRM would work, it would lower global temperatures. That is known. What isn't known is what else it might do. What is known is that it would do little to solve the real problem.
edit on 2/26/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Witness2008
reply to post by network dude
 


It was the observations of the chemical plowing of our skies over the years that revealed the geo-engineering scheme, which has been going on for some time.

But that's just your opinion. There are plenty of other people who studied the theory and decided that what we see in the sky is contrails. Normal residue of increased air traffic and the result of new engine technology. If the lines in the sky were something other than frozen water droplets, then don't you think that someone would test it and report the obvious crime?

Seriously, if SRM was taking place right now, it would be a HUGE infraction of international law. Please tell me you understand that.


Unfortunately you and others here will fail at separating the two, especially when you start threads that in my opinion are meant to be combative.

This thread was in response to an article I read this morning. It certainly isn't meant to be combative, but in the spirit of trying to stop the childish fighting in this forum, I invite you to alert anything I say that is offensive. I will reciprocate.

I personally feel that Geo-engineering is too important of a topic to be mixed with what I consider to be a mis-identification of contrails. It's just my opinion. Please feel free to disagree.


Geo-engineering is a lot more dangerous to our environment than just letting the forces of nature correct what ever ills she is feeling.

Between geo-engineering and fracking, we are pretty much screwed.


I agree. I am not saying we should sit on our hands. I just think we need to fix the obvious things first, Like stopping fracking until we understand if it will have detrimental affects on our world, or putting a whole lot of effort into finding some form of alternative fuel.

I swear, if the two sides would try to understand each other, we would find we have more in common than not.
edit on 26-2-2014 by network dude because: bad spelr



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
if someone, somewhere hasn't done it to show it's more than a pipe dream with no real chance of working on a basic level.


And that is a very good point. It very well could have happened somewhere, at some point. but.....

When you look up at the sky and see lots of contrails that most likely cover an entire state, can you see how if it was some secret program, it's not very good at being hidden? If it was a spraying operation, as has been mentioned here numerous times, all it would take is the taking of a sample and exposing the whole thing. Am I to believe that nobody in this whole world believes in the conspiracy deeply enough to spend a few thousand dollars to find out?

I don't think anyone here denies that it could happen. I do know that what I feel is that what we see in the sky fit into the contrail box so perfectly that you would have to do some magic to prove them other.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Are any of us in such a position of high authority and clearance for information to know, as a fact, this isn't happening and has never happened?


And just to point this out, no, none of us on either side can say with any authority that it is, or is not happening. But we can use reason and common sense to examine the evidence and make an educated guess.

Once it moved beyond a theory, it can be addressed and dealt with. I think you will agree that both sides are guilty of speaking in absolutes. (probably being backed into a corner)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I have been reading about the "Cool Roof" and "Reflective Sheeting" proposals.

Most of our city infrastructure absorbs heat, black top roads, dark roofing, destruction of natural shading. Altering the materials we use for such things would have a positive impact, and leave us without all of the metallic fallout that destroys the natural environment that contributes to the balance we are loosing fast. The cost of doing so would be a fraction of that proposed for dumping reflective materials into the upper atmosphere.


edit on 26-2-2014 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Witness2008
 

It's a neat idea. It might cool a city a bit but not do much for the global problem of rising CO2 levels.

A worldwide conversion to white roofs, accounting for their albedo effect only, was calculated to cool population-weighted temperatures by ~0.02 K but to warm the earth overall by ~0.07 K.

journals.ametsoc.org...


Also...unintended consequences:

We find that an increase in reflectivity over land that mitigates the global mean warming from a doubling of CO2 leads to a large residual warming in the southern hemisphere and cooling in the northern hemisphere since most of the land is located in northern hemisphere. Precipitation and runoff over land decrease by 13.4 and 22.3%, respectively, because of a large residual sinking motion over land triggered by albedo enhancement over land. Soil water content also declines when albedo over land is enhanced.

www.see.ed.ac.uk...


edit on 2/26/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join