UK Admits Plans to Inject Aerosols into Stratosphere

More means and motives validating chemtrails as a reality.

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic (that is human caused) climate change. Geoengineering covers many techniques and technologies but splits into two broad categories: those that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere such as sequestering and locking carbon dioxide in geological formations; and those that reflect solar radiation. Techniques in this category include the injection of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect caused by large volcanic eruptions. The technologies and techniques vary so much that any regulatory framework for geoengineering cannot be uniform. Instead, those techniques, particularly carbon removal, that are closely related to familiar existing technologies, could be regulated by developing the international regulation of the existing regimes to encompass geoengineering. For other technologies, especially solar refection, new regulatory arrangements will have to be developed.

There are three reasons why, we believe, regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country unilaterally to affect the climate. Second, some—albeit very small scale—geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering as a “Plan B” if, in the event of the failure of “Plan A”—the reduction of greenhouse gases—we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. If we start work now it will provide the opportunity to explore fully the technological, environmental, political and regulatory issues.

Of course we know that, in the realm of military technology, anything politicians are talking about is already old news.

And here they are openly talking about injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight in an effort to manipulate climate, and admitting that testing of such techniques is already underway, "albeit very small scale," whatever "small scale" means to a politician.


And for those who are unaware, the stratosphere resides between about 6 and 30 miles up into the air.


Expect the usual disinfo gang to arrive shortly to begin explaining to us how this is proof of nothing and we're all lunatics for paying attention to what politicians say (although there is a grain of truth to that I suppose ) .

I don't see anything about plans to inject anything. All I see is more discussions about various geoengineering proposals.

Oh, the testing mentioned? If you read a little further into the document you find out what they are talking about.

Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith
told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing,100 though Dr Blackstock added
that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”.101

That "subscale" test?

Scientists have long known that aerosols in the atmosphere can reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth, and so some geoengineering schemes had proposed cutting global temperatures by deploying aerosols. The Russian scientists put that plan into action by placing aerosol generators on a helicopter and a car chassis, so that they could spew sulfates at heights of up to 656 feet (200 meters) and see how much that cut back on sunlight.

www.popsci.com...

Originally posted by Phage
I don't see anything about plans to inject anything. All I see is more discussions about various geoengineering proposals.

Alright, you want to use the word "proposal" instead of "plan." Brilliant way to start off your trolling, Phage. And what is a proposal?

Type "proposal definition" into Google. What do you get?

pro·pos·al/prəˈpōzəl/Noun
1. A plan or suggestion put forward for consideration or discussion by others.

Like I said, way to start off your argument, with semantics that were automatically refuted.

Oh, the testing mentioned? If you read a little further into the document you find out what they are talking about.

Nor is geoengineering confined to modelling and the distant future. Professor Keith
told us that the Russians were already carrying out testing,100 though Dr Blackstock added
that the Russian tests were “extremely subscale”.101

Nowhere does it say this is the full extent of the testing.

reply to post by bsbray11

pro·pos·al/prəˈpōzəl/Noun 1. A plan or suggestion put forward for consideration or discussion by others.

Please provide information about other testing.

Originally posted by Phage
Please provide information about other testing.

Please write your congressman and/or representative at the House of Commons.


The less naive amongst us should have realized by now that if politicians are already openly talking about some technology, then the military has already been studying it for some time. That's why I hardly believe that the testing they vaguely reference has really only been on a "small" scale at all. But of course don't let me stand in the way of your assumptions that this isn't happening. You could go up in a plane with the guy dumping the crap yourself and still be demanding proof.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, you have made me question what my eyes and memory tell me on a couple of occasions. I cannot argue your science because i don't understand it enough.

Could you please tell me though, If there is research and experimentation underway at any level, what time line would they be proposing? I thought we were coming up to a solar maximum that would begin to decline in 10-15 years or so anyway.

So the studies that focus on blocking sunlight - If the the technology is being seriously considered and the window of purpose is closing, when would you consider an appropriate time to deliver the results? and how do you propose the idea it delivered to the public?

reply to post by bsbray11

The military is testing geoengineering schemes? Why?

Originally posted by tom goose
Phage, you have made me question what my eyes and memory tell me on a couple of occasions. I cannot argue your science because i don't understand it enough.

Coincidentally, there is a disinformation tactic known as "baffle with BS" along with other names. Your inability to understand what he's posting is probably an intentional goal.

So the studies that focus on blocking sunlight - If the the technology is being seriously considered and the window of purpose is closing, when would you consider an appropriate time to deliver the results? and how do you propose the idea it delivered to the public?

Like I said, if politicians are already openly talking about it, then the military is already doing it. They have no oversight, and where do you think these ideas really come from in the first place?

[quote Originally posted by bsbray11

Geoengineering describes

They are describing what geoengineering is

Techniques in this category include

and it's common techniques




Phage is right. And there is an obvious difference between proposing something and planning to do it. A proposal is the initial step to see what others think of an idea - nothing to be worried about yet.

reply to post by tom goose

There really is no timeline. Climate change "supporters" deny that solar cycles have an effect on warming.

The idea has been "delivered" and it is a topic of great interest.

Despite the controversy over climate change, it is agreed that geoengineering schemes (all of them, not just SRM) require much more research (in the form of modeling) before real world testing can be undertaken. It is agreed that the risk of unforeseen consequences is great. It is agreed that some form of international control needs to be in place to prevent the unilateral implementation of any such scheme.

There is a great political debate over it. There are those who say that having geoengineering as a "fall back" option will delay or prevent the implementation of carbon control measures. There are those who say that whatever the case, geoengineering must be on the table as a "last chance" option.

Originally posted by byteshertz
Phage is right. And there is an obvious difference between proposing something and planning to do it.

You know "proposal" and "plan" are synonyms, right? Do you know what a synonym is?

I can't believe you people are trying to turn this into semantic bickering, given the actual content of the PDF above. Actually, no, I can believe it. It's the last place you have to run. The ultimate proof of chemtrails -- government admission -- is right at your door step.

A proposal is the initial step to see what others think of an idea

An extremely controversial idea that, by pure coincidence I'm sure ( ), thousands of people are already convinced has already been happening for years/decades.

reply to post by Phage


Ok. But do you have any information on when this technology and the time line that it can promise results in, will be rendered useless against the known time line of the solar maximum?

Realistically, do you believe the is enough time to get through all the red tape and multinational agreements before it will be too late to use it?

Originally posted by tom goose
Realistically, do you believe the is enough time to get through all the red tape and multinational agreements before it will be too late to use it?

Come on man, no one with their head solidly on their shoulders is going to buy these lame excuses for climate manipulation when everything else our corrupt contemporary governments touch is inevitably ruined. I can't help but think there is controlled "opposition" going on here.

There is a reason this subject is extremely controversial and good reason that our governments are very careful about what they say or do not say about what they are already doing to our atmosphere. Plenty of people are already pissed at what they are perceiving to happen around them in their own skies.


Listen to the USDA biologist complaining about his rain water sample just after 1:20 in this video:




This is the kind of crap you're going to get if you openly allow your government to start pumping the skies full of chemicals for any reason. It's no wonder they would lie about this kind of stuff for so long, and spend so much time and effort trying to discredit everything about it.

reply to post by tom goose

Solar maximum is not the problem, and it's only two years away. As I said, there is little evidence that individual solar cycles have much of an effect on warming and the evidence that is there is well contested.

There is no timeline. No one knows what the real effect of any geoengineering scheme would be. It's all in the very early stages of study.

Originally posted by Phage
It's all in the very early stages of study.

Only if you take what politicians say at face value.

You know, the same kinds of people who said, "I am not a crook," "I did not have sex with that woman," "Read my lips: no new taxes," "We know where the WMDs are in Iraq"....

reply to post by bsbray11

It's not politicians. It's the people in the reports you're showing as "evidence". I don't hear politicians talking about it much at all.

reply to post by bsbray11


I am trying to get the logistics of the whole thing. Phage always has some way to explain away the formation of clouds and how everything is how it should be. Fine! I cannot argue that. However...

Here he is acknowledging that there is research and small scale tests being done. So....

If the ones making proposals are selling the idea to prevent global warming, give us back our ice caps bla bla bla, want this idea of theirs to defeat any perils, when are they proposing to be the point of no return?

weather we are talking about solar cycles or carbon dioxide, either threat has a model to go off of that can determine the point where the problem we are trying to solve is going to get the better of us. I don't know this information i was hoping you did.

If you could guess - Do you think there is enough time to get global acceptance of this kind of technology before it becomes futile?

I'm not arguing weather or not they are spraying chemicals because i cannot prove it for myself, and i just get talked into a bore. I want to know the thinking behind the whole idea.

Originally posted by Phage
It's not politicians.

Check the URL again. "Parliament." This is for the House of Commons. The politicians themselves did not write it, but it is for them and a result of their bureaucratic system of reporting information.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tom goose

 

Solar maximum is not the problem, and it's only two years away. As I said, there is little evidence that individual solar cycles have much of an effect on warming and the evidence that is there is well contested.

There is little evidence that radiant power of the sun has any effect on global temperatures??? Maybe my basic understanding of life is a little rusty, but im almost certain that the sun's activity effects the earth.

reply to post by Phage


Got a question for you, as I'm on the fence about Chemtrails, and I feel like both sides have valid arguments.

Up until recently, I lived in an arid region with maybe 350 days of sun, about 45 minutes west of Palm Springs. The commercial airlines run east to west, and west is the direction of the Ontario and Los Angeles airports, Ontario being about an hour's drive. Planes go back and forth across the sky all day and night, and they are at a height where I can make out their general shape, and the shapes of their windows, and their coloring.
Now, there are other planes which fly much higher than this, and these are indistinct specks to my eyes. These planes are shiny white or gray, leave white or gray trails in their wake, and they sometimes criss-cross the sky north and south, east and west to make a grid pattern in the sky. The trails eventually spread and cover vast portions of the sky for the remainder of the day. I have followed the path of these planes for 25 miles, as I sometimes dropped my daughter off at college, or picked her up while they were still in motion.
I am willing to entertain an explanation that it gets colder the higher it is, and the more likely a contrail will form, except for one repeated event. These high altitude planes leave a trail, then stop leaving it. They turn around in the sky, and once they've positioned themselves parallel to their previous line, the trail starts up again, like skywriting. Sometimes they kept going all the way down the horizon until I couldn't see them anymore, but many times I'd watch them making the wide turns and start their way back from where they'd first come from, and no trail whatsoever while they're making the turn. It looked a lot like a farmer tilling a field, turning his mule around, and starting on the next row back.
I've looked into cloud seeding, but doesn't there have to be a cloud first for them to seed?
The sun is always cooking out there, there is no surface water, there are no crops, there is hardly any wind for three quarters of the year, and I have no idea why something would be trailing a plane in such a way right up to the edge of a populated area, as when this condensation or chemical or whatever it is settles, it would land well into the desert.
This occurred in the eastern most corner of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, in California, and I noticed it from 2008 through 2010.