It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Worlds first Geoengineering thread in the new ATS geoengineering forum!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:48 PM
Great thread OP thanks for the invite.

Here's a few pictures detailing some of the Geoengineering techniques.

Ocean fertilization was a bad idea.


The giant reflectors idea is way too expensive

I've read a little about them trying to replace the amount of ozone


Carbon Capture and burial from Industrial manufacturing has already been happening for awhile now and is not included in the UN moratorium on large scale Geoengineering.


Ideas to replicate sulfate aerosols from volcanoes will cause Ocean acidification to increase


posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by MathiasAndrew

Good overview. It is wonderful to have you back!

Believe it or not ATG found this GEM: ICAO Environment Report 2010.

There is hope for ATG yet!

Very interesting paper. I only read one section of it: Aviations contribution to climat change.

But I find deeply flawed science here. A study was done in Alaska that showed that the overall effect of aviation was a net decrease. This was confirmed after 9/11 where recorded data showed with no airplanes flying led to a net increase of temperature 2.2 degrees. So aircraft decrease the temperature 1-2 degrees. Yet this paper says the opposite, it says aviation lead to an increase in temperature:

The amount of cumulative CO2 emissions that will result in a 2° C temperature increase is relatively well known and quantified: one trillion tonnes of CO2, half of which has already been emitted. The question that remains is “what proportion can aviation have of the half a trillion tonnes of CO2 that can be emitted, before surface temperatures increase beyond 2° C?

One of the authors does acknowledge this, in a backhanded manner:

Aviation climate impacts are due to both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. The non-CO2 emissions include water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides(SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and black carbon (or soot) particles.

Aviation CO2, H2O and soot emissions contribute directly to climate change with positive radiative forcing (net warming). Whereas, emissions of NOx, SOx, H2O and black carbon aerosols contribute indirectly to climate change.

Notice how he says Co2 increases temperature and No So and H2O "contribute indirectly"... i.e. they actually COOL, yet they do not say this. Nor do they admit anywhere in this paper that aviation leads to a NET COOLING... very interesting.

He goes on and obfuscates further, notice he does not mention the So2 or carbon... which are mentioned throughout the geoengineering research as aerosols they want to use to cool the atmosphere:

In general, there is a better understanding of impacts of GHG emissions that have a direct impact on the climate than emissions that have indirect impacts. For example, while the scientific understanding and modelling of NOx effects have substantially improved over the last few years, there is still uncertainty regarding the exact extent to which NOx emissions from air travel affect climate change through their impact on ozone formation and methane destruction. Similarly, H2O vapor emissions can trigger formation of contrails in sufficiently cold air masses which may persist for hours and can potentially increase cirrus cloudiness. Direct emissions of black carbon and in situ formed aerosols can also serve as cloud condensation nuclei which, along with background aerosols, facilitate the forma- tion of contrails and cirrus clouds. Contrails and induced cirrus clouds reflect solar short-wave radiation and trap outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in the net positive contribution to climate change.

The Alaskan study and the 9/11 study both invalidate his assumption that these contrails lead to warming. He is either not aware or directly misleading. I think the later because he totally leaves out black carbon and So2 data from his explanation. Lying by omission. His paycheck probably comes from toeing the line and/or the paper is edited to toe the line. So he might have included this information and it was edited out. This happens all the time on shows such as the History channel... I've heard people complaining that they have edited things in such ways to say the opposite of their statements.

Either way this paper is proven to be forcing an agenda, skewing data and the discussion and out right lying.

I find it fascinating that So2 and black carbon are admitted to in this paper at all... So those contrails ARE geoengineering, as they have 2 geoengineering aerosols.

Climate-gate continues.

Also, There is NO proven link to Co2 and global warming. So this whole paper is misleading on sooo many levels.

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
Very interesting talk on geoengineering with both pro, and anti geoengineering views:
Geoengineering Global Salvation or Ruin

Congressional hearing on geoengineering:
Papers presented at hearings:
Geoengineering IIe: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges

I will often replace the term “Solar Radiation Management” with the word “geoengineering”. And I will often loosely refer to the “changes in the amount of energy entering or leaving some part of the planet because of some climate factor” as a “forcing”. So there is a forcing associated with increasing greenhouse gases, and there is another forcing associated with Solar Radiation Management. The idea is to try to match the forcings so that they kind of cancel.

You might also be interested to know that scientists have occasionally considered using other kinds of particles to do geoengineering. But you asked me to focus on sulfate aerosols so I will not discuss other particles further.

clouds as a whole tend to cool the planet more than they warm it.

If one introduces extra aerosol into a region where a cloud is going to form, then when the cloud forms, there will be more cloud drops in it than there would otherwise have been.

Biological and Land-Based Strategies for Geoengineering Earth’s Climate

Here are four take-home messages of my testimony:
1) Some biological and land-use strategies for geoengineering are already feasible, including restoring or planting forests, avoiding deforestation, and using croplands to reflect sunlight and store carbon in soils.
2) Biological and land-based geoengineering alters carbon uptake, sunlight absorption, and other biophysical factors that affect climate together.
3) Geoengineering for carbon or climate will alter the abundance of water, biodiversity, and other things we value.
4) A research agenda for geoengineering is urgently needed that crosses scientific disciplines and coordinates research across federal departments and agencies.

Air Capture and Mineral Sequestration

Together, air capture and mineral sequestration provide a comprehensive solution to combat climate change. Capturing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it safely and permanently as solid mineral carbonate provides a way to maintain access to plentiful and affordable energy, while stabilizing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. Abandoning fossil fuels would seriously affect energy security. On the other hand, the continued emission of carbon dioxide would have harmful consequences for climate, oceans, and ecosystems. Air capture can extract unwanted carbon from the atmosphere, and mineral sequestration can provide a virtually unlimited and safe reservoir for the permanent storage of excess carbon.

Learning to manage sunlight: Research needs for Solar Radiation Management

Two kinds of geoengineering
Geoengineering describes two distinct concepts. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) describes a set of tools for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while Solar Radiation Management (SRM) would reduce the Earth‘s absorption of solar energy, cooling the planet by, for example, adding sulfur aerosols to the upper atmosphere or adding sea salt aerosols to increase the lifetime and reflectivity of low-altitude clouds.

Solar-radiation management may be the only response that can fend off unlikely but rapid and high-consequence climate impacts.

edit on 14-4-2011 by pianopraze because: adding link/quotes

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:17 PM
reply to post by pianopraze

Thank you very much, it's wonderful to be back. Especially, in the new Geoengineering forum. It's about time this topic got some more attention. You supplied some really great information here and in the other thread as well.

Climate gate indeed. I used to believe pretty strongly in the general theories behind global warming. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I still think the Earth has been going through a warming trend but the main cause is still unclear.

It seems like the CFR is pushing the Co2 agenda and the UN isn't totally ready to buy into that theory yet. There's a lot of conflicting reports out there. Once I learned more about the governance issues and the policies behind carbon taxes, I could definitely see certain agendas being pushed with some of the reports and studies that get released.

edit on 14-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:19 PM
Thank you...


posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by thruthseek3r
reply to post by pianopraze

Great video, interesting stuff out there. I started recently worrying about chemtrails because here In Canada I start to hear more and more planes passing by during these days. Maybe it has nothing to do with it but I noticed the trails in the sky and it's not a recent phenomenon. I watched the video only 5 min and plan to watch it completely someday.

Star for this post.


Star in return

I star all that post in my threads (except for the trolls).

Hopefully we will have this thread as a compendium of geoengineering information.

Here are some patents pertaining:
us patent 5,003,186
Chang , et al. March 26, 1991 Hughes Aircraft


What is claimed is:

1. A method of reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a layer of gases in the atmosphere which absorb strongly near infrared wavelength radiation, comprising the step of dispersing tiny particles of a material within the gases' layer, the particle material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said material has high emissivities with respect to radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra, and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum, whereby said tiny particles provide a means for converting infrared heat energy into far infrared radiation which is radiated into space.

2. The method of claim wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide.

4. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises thorium oxide.

5. The method of claim 1 wherein said particles are dispersed by seeding the stratosphere with a quantity of said particles at altitudes in the range of seven to thirteen kilometers above the earth's surface.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the size of said particles is in the range of ten to one hundred microns.

The method of injecting the aerosol particulates? Adding it into the engines to come out in the contrails. Owned by Ratheon, owners of HAARP patents.

Patent number 3,899,144


The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a "contrail"

patent pdf

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:32 PM
The IPCC is a global organization tracking climate change. This page has a lot of their reports.

Aviation Report

Check out sec.4. Modeling the Chemical Composition of the Future Atmosphere

The US has the Global Change Research Program Here's some of their reports.

This is a interesting report on Ozone

Trends in Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Substances, Ozone Layer Recovery, and Implications for Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure

edit on 14-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: spelling

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:28 PM
Glad to see that there is a place to collate valid information. I have recently been involved in work with structured water and it leads me to wonder how the rain actually interacts with the geo-engineering particulate. I know some pilots who just can't believe outside their narrow pilot box, but who are open to talking science, so maybe i can look at the problem in a new light.

I will attempt to check in every so often. I hope to keep up on the topic and really find a way to remove the barium, strontium and aluminum - somehow this also seems related to removing strontium, cesium and iodine from nuclear waste clouds. There seems to be some valid technology that has to do with structured water at . I believe that metal ions structure water naturally - mebbe the water has the intelligence to speak to us directly.

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 05:26 AM
In this video Ken Caldeira talks about geoengineering and previous weather and germ warfare ideas. Also clips from 60 minutes and Donald Rumsfeld.

Center for Integrating Information on Geoengineering

In this video different methods of Geoengineering by cloud seeding are discussed

edit on 15-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add video

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:21 PM
Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfur injection and volcanic analogs:

Applications for a 3-D chemistry-climate model with aerosol micro physics

Purpose: show a potential use for GMI with stratospheric aerosols coupled to chemistry climate model

Funding for this project provided to AER from NASA/ACMA

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 04:26 PM
I made a thread listing some patents associated with aerosol geoengineering.

Here's one of the items from the OP

Atmospheric injection of reflective aerosol for mitigating global warming
United States Patent Application 20100127224

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 03:44 AM
Here we have two studies done on persistent contrails. One from 1972 and another from 2009.

In the first study they tried to create a persistent contrail using a twin jet engine Saberliner by increasing the jets fuel consumption and slowing the planes air speed under the most optimal conditions for persistent contrails to form. The contrail lasted for less than 1 hour.


Measurements in the growth of a persistent contrail

In the second study a persistent contrail was photographed and studied by satellite. It was assumed to have been made by an AWACS jet. It was seen to last for 18 hours.


A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving
into contrail-induced cirrus 2009

The radiative forcing due to a distinct pattern of persistent contrails that form into contrail-induced cirrus near and over the UK is investigated in detail for a single case study during March 2009. The development of the contrail-induced cirrus is tracked using a number of high-resolution polar orbiting and lower-resolution geostationary satellite instruments and is found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, it covers over 50,000 k

They just happened to catch this freak of nature contrail on satellite and decided to study it's radiative forcing effects? I don't think so, one plane made that spiral shaped contrail and it's not a coincidence that the contrail doesn't change it's shape during the odd flight path through different altitudes. Then it spreads out over 50,000 k.

Remind you that this spiral contrail was supposed to have been made by normal jet exhaust and it lasted 18 hours. The contrail in the first report, which was intentionally made using high fuel consumption settings and lowered airspeed in optimal conditions only lasted for 1 hour.

Why don't we see any other persistent contrails from other aircraft in the area? There had to have been other aircraft flying in that area. Yet we only see the one giant spiral contrail. I find that very very odd.
edit on 17-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add pics


Other follow up studies

Case studies of contrail-induced cirrus

Optics and Radiation

The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP)

edit on 17-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add link

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:48 AM
Space-Based Monitoring for Governance of Solar Radiation Management

•International governance of potential SRM activities needs to be established soon, to deter unilateral experimentation w/ particle injection.
•The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, & the Long-Range TransboundaryAir Pollution Convention & others may serve as models for a governance framework & a binding int'l treaty that prohibits unilateral & potentially dangerous application of SRM.
•To detect & deter unsanctioned SRM development activities will require monitoring systems that can reliably detect early test phases involving relatively small amounts of particles.
•Our preliminary finding is that reliable detection of small clandestine tests from space will be very challenging.
•This preliminary finding has important implications in future treaty negotiations, which may need to consider alternative methods of monitoring such activities.
•As w/ nuclear test monitoring, detecting clandestine particle-injection experiments & development activities will require a combination of techniques & involving extensive ground, space & other means.
•However, given the strong need for improved understanding of the role of aerosols in the stratosphere, as well as for applications such as the monitoring of volcano dust for airline safety, the impetus may exist for
the development of a multifunction system of space-based sensors.


posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:57 PM
All these atmospheric aerosol tests were completed right before all the complaints about jet contrails started to pour in.

October 30-November 1, 1995

posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:58 AM
There's a new term that I found that describes Geoengineering for Solar Radiation Management .

Shortwave Climate Engineering

GOOGLE: Shortwave Climate Engineering

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 02:39 PM
Hello everyone. I have personally taken some compelling TIME-LAPSE footage of chemtrails in Canada which I think is quite revealing. My video shows the trails behaving in a very strange way (one trail slowly turns into 5 or 6 smaller perpendicular trails).

It is found HERE.

Here is the other link incase that one doesn't work (although this version of the video has typos).

By the way, I made the music behind the footage as well. If you want more of my music (metal/hip-hop/electronic), go here or here.
edit on 5/12/2011 by PinealGland because: I tried to make my own thread but apparently I'm too "new" here...

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by PinealGland

Yes....watched your video. Got bored. so skipped to about the middle, where you said the "anomaly" was.

You mean those several nearly perpendicular "hash marks" that formed off of the existing contrail??

Ever heard of "wind" and air currents? You cut to photos of the sorts of cirrus clouds (NATURAL cirrus) that make those same patterns, for the same even point them out!!

Nothing in that entire video is anything but normal contrails. Same as I've seen for nearly four decades.

In fact, the time-lapse makes that even more evident.....time-lapse is the best way to prove they are just normal contrails!!

Additionally....just about everything else you wrote, in the body of the description beneath, and in the text boxes in video, are pure fallacy and fantasy.....even paranoid.

You even claim that Hurrican Katrina!!!? Really....who else here is that deluded??

edit on 12 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:37 PM
reply to post by PinealGland

Incredible video. If you could correspond flights of the day and cross reference weather ballon data you would have a slam dunk. As it is, there are room for the debunkers to play.

Great work

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by pianopraze

To repeat, from above:

".....time-lapse is the best way to prove they are just normal contrails!! "

Those look exactly as one would expect, on days when upper level conditions were right for contrails to form...the presence of all the OTHER clouds, merely confirms this!!!

And, all those jets flying through the camera frame....ALL on the same route!! Gee, wonder why?......

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by pianopraze

edit on 12 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in