Geo-engineering no Holy Grail - study

reply to post by Witness2008


That is one idea that could make a localized impact. And it cannot hurt anything by trying, other than costing a bit.

One thing that all the proponents of chemtrails seem to miss is the oceans are the biggest heat sync we have. If we were to spray an area to cool things down, which do you think would make the most impact, spraying over the oceans, or spraying over a desert in California?

All the more reason to think that perhaps contrails are just that.

reply to post by Phage


From your source....

White roof local cooling may also affect energy use, thus emissions, a factor not accounted for here. As such, conclusions here regarding white roofs apply only to the assumptions made.

Less energy used to cool would mean less CO2.

And the fracking needs to stop. Not only is the release of methane contributing to the warming problem, but the water supply that we have to keep us cool, fed and hydrated is being abused to the point of no return.

Lunatics are in charge.

reply to post by network dude

If we were to spray an area to cool things down, which do you think would make the most impact, spraying over the oceans, or spraying over a desert in California?

We shouldn't be spraying over anything. What I find most frustrating is the fact that industries continue to pollute and destroy with impunity, and the rest of us are left to figure out how to save ourselves and the planet from their exploits. WTH?

Spraying oxides into the atmosphere, only to return to the surface is asinine.

Witness2008

We shouldn't be spraying over anything. What I find most frustrating is the fact that industries continue to pollute and destroy with impunity, and the rest of us are left to figure out how to save ourselves and the planet from their exploits. WTH?

Spraying oxides into the atmosphere, only to return to the surface is asinine.

I agree and I don't think we are spraying anything. I was trying again to use logic to enforce my thoughts.

reply to post by network dude

I swear, if the two sides would try to understand each other, we would find we have more in common than not.

I agree with this completely and absolutely.

I am totally against the idea of uploading a patch to Nature to help it fix a problem in the short term with no clue as to what follow on problems, possibly irreversible, that we would be creating for ourselves.

This is why I have an interest in this forum, but it pains me when I see the chemtrail posts and the photos of contrails and the repetition of nonsense propaganda such as contrails can't persist and spread. I try to offer reason, which is frequently thrown back in my face, but inwardly I'm screaming "YOURE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!!"

Some of it may be deliberate, most of it is undoubtedly misguided, all of it is frustrating.

reply to post by network dude

I was trying again to use logic to enforce my thoughts.

I understood that.

I can be difficult at times, certainly with this subject.

I tend not to debate solutions for anything while watching the problem continue to grow unabated. We can actually just stop doing the stupid sh!! that we are doing.

Over the past few years that Ive been monitoring weather and climate news, almost all the stories about geoengineering based on scientific studies have either questioned whether it would work or pointed out potential drawbacks and other problems that it would cause.

Which is one reason why I am certain no such geoengineering takes place, and probably never will.

Better to learn to live with the probem we have, than replace it with another one. Canes toads spring to mind....

Always beware the law of unintended consequences.

reply to post by network dude

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)

If it isn't discussed and examined in the light of day within the open forums of public debate, we can never determine if it can or actually has moved beyond theory.

I can look at the sky above my head here, see contrails and know by the air routes, time of year and atmospheric conditions that they are, almost certainly, contrails I see and nothing more. At the same time, I have seen things I don't believe were regular contrails and on more than one occasion around the US. For the same factors I'd be sure it was a contrail today, I'm equally confident they were suspicious at best, in those other times over the years. However, again, I can't say...as I'm not an atmospheric expert or anyone with expertise of disbursing particulate from aircraft.

We do agree though, both sides of this particular topic do tend to speak in absolute terms that neither side can, by definition, possibly have to work with.

Kinda like UFO's/Aliens. There is absolutely no undisputed and absolute evidence they exist at all, let alone that they've ever come here. I believe they both do exist and have visited Earth, as a personal opinion ...but I could never prove it. UFOs, by contrast, exist beyond debate as any advanced aircraft or otherwise unknown object is a UFO. We seen them regularly, to think in those terms. The two, sometimes totally separate topics tend to make a nice match tho, I'd say. They overlap and are related more often than not for discussion or public perception. Either being equal for importance. Hence..joint forum topics.

Much like this topic...

Wrabbit2000
At the same time, I have seen things I don't believe were regular contrails and on more than one occasion around the US.

If you ever see this again, (and I mean this for anyone who feels this way) Please do every and anything you can to identify the plane. Using flight tracking software, either one of three things will happen.
1. you will see it's a commercial flight and there is no reason to think it's anything other than a contrail
2. you will find it's a suspicious military flight and you can try to identify the plane to see where it's stationed.
3. you will not be able to identify it leaving that question mark in your mind as to what you saw.

I am for truth. Even if I find it goes against what I think is truth.

Much like this topic...

Tricky rabbit. trying to change my mind with my own words. Tricky indeed.

Which is pretty much what REAL geo-engineering scientists have always said, and chemmies have always ignored.

Aloysius the Gaul
Which is pretty much what REAL geo-engineering scientists have always said, and chemmies have always ignored.

Wanna define "chemmie".

This thread, so far, seems fairly civil. Why do that?

reply to post by Witness2008


Sure: Chemmie = someone who believes chemtrails exist

What's uncivil about it?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That's the sense in which I use it. Nothing derogatory, merely shorthand.

And just to pre-empt THAT old argument again, this means chemtrails as misidentified contrails so beloved of the look up crowd. Not the strawman argument of any chemicals left in the sky by anything, by which definition the entire sky is a permanent chemtrail. That always comes across to me as the chemmie equivalent of pressing self destruct when it's the only option left .

I've had the shill card thrown at me a few times (which is the same thing too IMO) but all I would like is for people to know about contrails and aircraft so they can really focus their angst instead of the Don Quixote style we so frequently get.

Back down to the sub levels.

I'm sure you won't mind if us chemmies don't join you there.

reply to post by Witness2008


Well I certainly don't mean it that way. I'm just stating my opinion. I don't see how I have attacked anyone there. If you would to point out what exactly is so insulting it might help me to come across better in future.

reply to post by waynos


Perhaps he could start by not saying other people are in the "sub levels"......

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Lol, perhaps so. Once again a genuine request goes unanswered. At least I can guarantee that is something I would never do.

There is geo-engineering going on, but its practitioners do not understand that they are doing it and the chemtrailers are too ignorant to know about it. Underground coal gasification is a step beyond fracking. Coals seams too deep to be excavated are actually ignited underground and the gases produced drawn off at the surface. Although done on a small scale decades ago by the Soviet Union, there are now plans to begin this potentially environmentally disastrous process in Europe and North America. Setting large swathes of the Earth's crust ablaze, then pumping that carbon into the atmosphere is geo-engineering on a massive scale, and yet no-one seems to be thinking of it in those terms. (I have thought about starting a thread on this topic, but it is about geo-engineering, not chemtrails, and would not be appropriate in this forum.)

For further reading:


www.forbes.com...

www.businessweek.com...

www.llnl.gov...

(I'm a bit ashamed of Lawrence Livermore Lab for endorsing this scheme!)

reply to post by DJW001


But surely it IS appropriate for this forum as it is geoengineering! I would be very interested in reading about that as I am only vaguely aware of the process.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by network dude

 

We do agree though, both sides of this particular topic do tend to speak in absolute terms that neither side can, by definition, possibly have to work with.

Not so sure about that. Seems like one side says it's definitely going on but doesn't present any evidence (despite their protestations) to show it is, and the other side says yes proposals exist and yes it is possible but we've seen no evidence that shows it is going on.