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.

 

Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I wanted to share some items of interest with all of you here on ATS regarding a specific aspect of Geoengineering. I would ask that you read the entire documents. Especially if you are not familiar with Geoengineering to get a more complete understanding of this issue. As I will only be quoting a few of the statements made in the document.

First, for those who are not familiar with this topic. Geoengineering can generally be classified into two different categories. The first category is called Carbon Dioxide Removal or Carbon Dioxide Reduction, CDR for short. It is already in widespread use through various techniques, such as carbon capture and storage and also through various technologies that reduce the emissions of vehicles and Industries that pollute the air and may be causing an increase in Global warming.

The next category is called Solar Radiation Management or SRM for short. Which is what this thread is about. It encompasses many different techniques to reflect some of the Suns solar radiation away from the Planet. In an attempt to mitigate the effects of Global warming.

Cooling The Earth Through Solar Radiation Management

An Opinion Piece for IRGC - International Risk Governance Council
The need for research and an approach to its governance


The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organisation based in Switzerland whose purpose is to help the understanding and governance of emerging, systemic global risks. It does this by identifying and drawing on scientific knowledge and the understanding of experts in the public and private sectors to develop fact based recommendations on risk governance for policymakers. IRGC believes that improvements in risk governance are essential if we are to develop policies that minimise risks and maximise public trust in the processes and structures of risk-related decision-making.


No one really is enthusiastic about changing the albedo of the planet through this technology, nor are the authors of this Opinion Piece. But the reality of climate change and the lack of international consensus on how to arrest greenhouse gas emissions makes it imperative for the survival of the planet as we know it that there be a Plan B. The authors of this IRGC Opinion Piece outline the essential elements of what could constitute this Plan B.

This is where it begins to get interesting

The SRM technology described in this thoughtful analysis may indeed be inevitable as a last resort. But to implement it without serious research being done beforehand would be akin to administering a new drug without clinical trials. In the case of drugs, only those receiving them are at risk. In the case of SRM, the entire planet and all living beings could be affected.That is why we should endorse the proposal from the authors that…“ the time has come to undertake a systematic programme of research on SRM ”.

Hon. Donald Johnston
Chairman of the Board
Formerly Secretary-General 1996-2006, OEC



If natural scientists, engineers and social scientists are going to start a programme of research, what should it look like? In our view, such a programme should begin with expanded computer simulations and laboratory studies. However, because there are many important questions about these technologies that can only be answered by observing the real world, within a few years it will likely be necessary to also conduct modest low-level field testing in a way that is transparent and coordinated informally within the international scientific community. The objective of such research should be to learn:

• What methods and strategies might work to implement SRM?
• How well are these various proposed methods likely to work and how well could they be controlled?
• How much would these different methods cost?
• What undesired side effects might arise and what new risks might be associated with these various methods?
• How will the direct effects of these various methods be distributed over time and across the world?
• What uncertainties remain because of incomplete understanding of the complex climate system?



So long as modest low-level field studies designed to answer these questions are done in an open and transparent manner, we believe they should not be subject to any formal international process of vetting and approval. Countries and firms routinely fly various aircraft in the stratosphere, or send rockets through the stratosphere into space.

These activities release significant quantities of particles and gases. A requirement for formal prior approval of small field studies, just because they are directed at learning about SRM and its limitations, is probably unenforceable because judging intent is often impossible. Such a regulation would, at best, make conducting modest low-level SRM research extremely difficult and, at worst, impossible.

That said, clearly one of the first objectives of an SRM research programme should be to give more precise meaning to the phrase “modest low-level”. This definition is important both to begin to create clear norms within the international scientific community, and also to provide technical input to the diplomatic and foreign policy community as it begins to think about how it might best regulate larger-scale experimental activities or proposals for actual implementation.

Pay close attention to what is said in the section below.

One possible approach would be to define, based on research, an “allowed zone”. Once a proposal for such a zone has been developed through research, it would need to be informally vetted within the international research community (for example, through a process such as the one the Royal Society is initiating, through the IAC Inter Academy Council of the world’s science academies, ICSU – International Council for Science, or some similar group).

After vetting, while experiments may still be subject to any number of regulatory requirements within the country funding or hosting them, scientists should be able to proceed with studies that fall inside this zone without formal international approval, subject only to the requirements that their studies are publicly announced and all results are made public.


Also please note the picture on page 17 section 6

They should also be informally assessed and coordinated within the scientific community. Once an “allowed zone” has been defined, a norm should be created that the further an experiment ventures outside such a zone, the more extensive the international vetting should be before it is conducted. In the future, such a boundary of allowed activities might be formally incorporated in an international treaty or other agreement.

An “allowed zone” might be defined in terms of a number of different variables or factors, such as the amount of radiative forcing, the duration of the forcing, and the impact that the experiment might have on ozone destruction. Figure 2A, provides an illustrative example. The initial research to define an “allowed zone” should examine what factors (axes) should be included to define the space, where the limits should be set, and what shape the “allowed zone” should have within that space.

The above document is just an opinion piece. We do not know what final actions our government has taken in regards to this testing. They are not being open about it....CONTINED



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
It is my opinion that these tests are being carried out already. without the publics knowledge or formal consent. They chose to only follow some of the advice recommended in the paper above and decided to not openly inform the public about these experiments.

In the following document below from NASA you can see more of the SRM testing agenda being discussed.

NASA - Report on Solar Radiation Management

In November of 2006 the NASA Ames Research Center and the Carnegie Institution of Washington Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University sponsored an expert workshop on the use of solar radiation management as a strategy for coping with the challenge of climate cha



2. An Experiment in Arctic Cooling
Many predict that more severe warming will affect the Arctic and the planet within a few decades. There is evidence that widespread melting of polar ice about 125,000 years ago contributed to a rise in global sea level 13 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) higher than today’s level. Polar temperatures were about 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 5 degrees Celsius) higher than they are today (IPCC, 2007).

Thus, the Arctic seems to be particularly vulnerable to climate warming.
Experiments performed at a scale that is too small to affect climate could yield much information about potential climate and chemical effects of solar radiation management schemes.

Particles deployed in the lower stratosphere near the North Pole in the late spring would be expected to be substantially removed from the stratosphere in the next polar winter, so unexpected adverse effects would be unlikely to persist for more than a single year.

Such reversible regional-scale testing would allow better understanding of the consequences of solar radiation management approaches without requiring commitment to prolonged or global-scale
interventions. Relatively low tech experiments to accelerate our understanding of climate science could begin soon.

One approach is to focus first on the Arctic with a particulate shield experiment. Perhaps the simplest idea uses the dispersion of tiny (less than one micron) particles in stratospheric air parcels that would be expected to descend into the troposphere and precipitate out within approximately 6 months.

Research could demonstrate how well atmospheric circulation patterns confine most of the deployed particles to the Arctic.Temperatures could be measured with sensors and sea-ice extent could be monitored from space. Changes in sea ice cover could provide a clear, visual signature of regional cooling. Ground measurements could give more refined understanding.

A first experiment could use just enough of the tiny particles to create a readily measurable radiation shielding effect. A second experiment could use enough particles and be of long enough duration to produce a detectable cooling effect. (Because of climate variability, a clear cooling signal would be more difficult to detect than a change in reflected sunlight.) These experiments could occur north of 70 degrees latitude, over the Arctic Ocean.



I have included a couple videos that show two of the top experts discussing these ideas for experiments. This is about as close as we're going to get to them being transparent and open about these experiments.


Public Meeting in the San Francisco Bay Area, on Geoengineering

On May 24th, 2011 We Are Change Calgary met with David Keith at University of Calgary



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

It is my opinion that these tests are being carried out already. without the publics knowledge or formal consent. They chose to only follow some of the advice recommended in the paper above and decided to not openly inform the public about these experiments.



Fair enough, if that is your opinion, i would need a little more time to read the whole document but id like to ask are you able to expand on why you believe this proposal has moved onto secret testing?

In his foreword the chairman does seem to make clear his pessimism that anything at all would be done based on his previous experiences.
edit on 20-11-2011 by waynos because: Add sentence



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



In his foreword the chairman does seem to make clear his pessimism that anything at all would be done based on his previous experiences.
Can you please quote the section you are referring to. I don't interpret that as what he said.


The SRM technology described in this thoughtful analysis may indeed be inevitable as a last resort. But to implement it without serious research being done beforehand would be akin to administering a new drug without clinical trials. In the case of drugs, only those receiving them are at risk. In the case of SRM, the entire planet and all living beings could be affected.That is why we should endorse the proposal from the authors that…“ the time has come to undertake a systematic programme of research on SRM ”.

Hon. Donald Johnston
Chairman of the Board
Formerly Secretary-General 1996-2006, OEC

edit on 20-11-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: typo



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Sure, it was the paragraphs immediately before your quote;


By nature I am not a pessimist, but it requires more optimism than I can generate to believe that there will be an enforceable multilateral agreement in my lifetime that will bring about a reduction of as much as 80% in CO2 emissions by the end of this century so as not to cross the threshold of 450 ppm which we are told will trigger an increase in global temperatures of 2 degrees centigrade.
A more likely scenario is that of “business as usual”, which the International Energy Agency (IEA) says will take us to an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 700 ppm in this century, with horrendous climate change and unthinkable economic and societal consequences. Of course there may be new technologies such as those referred to in this Opinion Piece which might come on stream in time to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it so as to meet emission targets. History makes me very doubtful.


The way I read that, with what was written before, was that he thinks nothing will be done in the future because nothing has been done in the past.

It would appear, I think, that this removes *this particular function* of possible reasons for Chemtrails from the list of what people believe they have been observing since the 1990's.**

There would seem also to be a timescale of 3 to 5 years for theoretical computer study to be carried out later on in the document, illustrated on pages 20-22, do you have reason to believe this has been bypassed?

** sorry, I should clarify. I have seen in a few threads people mentioning hat when they have seen what they believe to be chemtrails, they are wondering if the topic discussed in this document was the reason for it, to alleviate climate change. I'm just saying that the chairmans view seems to suggest not.
edit on 20-11-2011 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Of course there may be new technologies such as those referred to in this Opinion Piece which might come on stream in time to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere and sequester it so as to meet emission targets. History makes me very doubtful.


He says he is very doubtful of new technologies coming out that would scrub CO2 from the atmosphere. The part he is doubtful about is the preferred methods of CDR.
edit on 20-11-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: typo



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
I would like to add two more videos for your consideration.

This video is from an Alex Jones interview with Ben Livingston Cloud physicist & and Weather Modification expert


Waylon "Ben" Livingston knows his ideas are controversial, so he steps lightly when talking about them. His theories have been proven, the technology is in place. Research shows his ideas could save hundreds, maybe even thousands, of lives. He is a fascinating man with credentials as long as the wingspan of the airplanes he flew as a commander with the U.S. Navy in Korea and Vietnam.



This next video is a 2007 Discovery Channel documentary called "The Best Evidence" it shows arguments from both sides of this issue.

BEST EVIDENCE" was broadcasted August 10th, 2007. This documentary (with commercials) looks at those who claim that jet fuel of commercial and military aircraft's contain secret experimental additives, such as aluminum oxide, for weather modification purposes. The scientific theory behind this claim is that such additives could act like small mirrors to reflect sun rays, thus, slowing down the coming disastrous effects of global warming and climate change. Those who make this conclusion also say that some of these alleged experimental jet fuel additives can harm the health of plants, animals and humans, even if there was a positive intent behind them to help slow down global warming.




posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
On May 24th, 2011 We Are Change Calgary met with David Keith at University of Calgary


I'm glad you posted that video, as it very emphatically show David Keith explaining that there is nothing going on, not even tests. David Keith even says that if there WAS something going on, he would drop everything he was doing and risk his life to try to stop it. That's at 25:10

www.youtube.com...

It's a very long video, but I highly recommend that anyone interested in this subject watch the whole thing. It's very interesting. David Keith is very open about everything.

There's a rough key to the video here, if you want to look for particular topics.
metabunk.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


David Keith clearly states that he doesn't think anything is being tested yet. He fully admits that Governments lie and he does not really know for sure. He makes his living lying about this on a daily basis. He has already admitted to receiving death threats from some people. He's not going to risk his life or his career by admitting to the tests now.

Early in the video he even explains the technique he is going to use to deny the existence that it is happening. He explains that "people" will use a partial truth when lying about this issue. It is also quite clear that when the other people begin to ask him questions he becomes defensive and evasive. He doesn't answer a question unless it is worded perfectly. If their is a mistake in the phrasing he just sits back, laughs and avoids answering.

By watching his actions and listening to his answers I am more convinced that tests are happening. Quite the opposite of your position to take him at his word.Based on the same logic that all the debunkers use about not trusting people who are profiting from this issue. David Keith is one of the larger profiteers.

EDIT:

The part at 25:10 where he says he would risk his life to try to block it. Is a bit contradictory when he is going around the World promoting the idea of testing every where he goes do you think? He is stating that if he believed it was being done on a full scale Government cover up to implement it secretly. He didn't say he is against testing these techniques at a smaller scale. He is just playing the same word games he always does.


edit on 20-11-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
David Keith clearly states that he doesn't think anything is being tested yet. He fully admits that Governments lie and he does not really know for sure. He makes his living lying about this on a daily basis.


That's a very strong accusation, bordering on libel.

Name one lie that David Keith has made.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


All very good and well laid-out as a go-to reference for SRM proposals and concepts. But, contrary to one or a few peoples' opinions, they are still on the "drawing boards", so to speak:


It is my opinion that these tests are being carried out already. without the publics knowledge or formal consent.


Again, having the opinion is fine and dandy. We all have a varying number of many opinions, about thousands of things in life.

However, bold claims (even if "opinion based") that morph into statements of "fact" require, then, bold levels of proof and corroboration.

Empirical evidence. Through empirical research.

To relate to the "chemtrail phenomenon", the concept of 'empirical research' begins with 'observation'.

The 'observations' are what have been causing all of the ruckus of late. Problem then becomes.....

....."Are the 'observations' and the conclusions being drawn or made merely from the act of 'observing' a valid conclusion, or should some additional testing and experimentation be utilized in order to be certain?"


So, once again...the "log jam" --- claims that what (most) people already know are normal contrails being "something else" have been made, based entirely as yet, on "opinions". Opinions made in the whole, from a whole slew of misconceptions and false inferences.

The only proper way, then, to settle this and prove that the "opinions" are indeed valid, or not, is through proper, demonstrable and verifiable experimentation, sampling, and other testing criteria.

Furthermore, in the specific example here of 'SRM' activity as claimed, then there is the additional onus of showing the actual mechanisms in use, that would be needed in order to accomplish this program. The equipment, materials, and all the required supporting infrastructure.

Until then, the 'observations' of what some have dubbed "chemtrails" continue to indicate behavior and appearance that is identical to what are known to be airplane contrails.

By that standard, even the initial foray into "empirical observation" fails its first qualifier test.




edit on Sun 20 November 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
David Keith clearly states that he doesn't think anything is being tested yet. He fully admits that Governments lie and he does not really know for sure. He makes his living lying about this on a daily basis.


That's a very strong accusation, bordering on libel.

Name one lie that David Keith has made.


Let me rephrasing it then. It is my personal opinion that he is not telling all the facts he knows about the existence of SRM testing. Perhaps it's because the studies and testing has not been completed yet so he has incomplete data. But never the less he is denying any knowledge that "in the field" testing is being done except for the one Russian helicopter incident. Which leads me to believe he is not being completely truthful.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 




....."Are the 'observations' and the conclusions being drawn or made merely from the act of 'observing' a valid conclusion, or should some additional testing and experimentation be utilized in order to be certain?"


Yes, I do agree that observations are not enough to draw a conclusion upon. I would like to see additional testing. But, why is it that there is so much talk and potential fear about Governance issues. Yet no one from the Government is willing to do any kind of testing to see if experiments are taking place?


edit on 20-11-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: typo



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


There's a vast amount of continual testing of air, soil and water that has not shown up anything unusual.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Let me rephrasing it then. It is my personal opinion that he is not telling all the facts he knows about the existence of SRM testing. Perhaps it's because the studies and testing has not been completed yet so he has incomplete data. But never the less he is denying any knowledge that "in the field" testing is being done except for the one Russian helicopter incident. Which leads me to believe he is not being completely truthful.


But why do you think this? Just a general distrust of scientists? Or is there something specific that you think he knows about?

You think he knows about some large scale "chemtrail" program? If so, they you are clearly claiming he's explicitly lying.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


Much of the testing is being done by the Battelle Corporation. They have, again in my opinion, a conflict of interest happening within that entity. They are the 14th largest US Government Contractor. They are in charge of disposing of dangerous substances and harmful chemicals. While at the same time in charge of monitoring the air.

I find it hard to trust that they would not take advantage of the situation. They have openly admitted that they mix toxic waste materials into fuel supplies as a way of disposal. Would they then report that the cause of a bad air sample was coming from the fuel they made? I don't believe so.




You think he knows about some large scale "chemtrail" program? If so, they you are clearly claiming he's explicitly lying.


I think David Keith knows about small scale SRM testing that he is not admitting to.
edit on 20-11-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add text



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


If by "much" you mean "hardly any" then yes.

There are tens of thousands of test per day around the world. Water, soil, air. Thousands of different entities and people perform these tests in hundreds of countries.

Nobody has found evidence of anything being sprayed. Water is as expected, as is air and soil. Just regular pollution.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
They have openly admitted that they mix toxic waste materials into fuel supplies as a way of disposal.


You have a source for that?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
I think David Keith knows about small scale SRM testing that he is not admitting to.


So he's lying then?

What about chemtrails? Is he simply totally unaware of them?



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 



Yet no one from the Government is willing to do any kind of testing to see if experiments are taking place?


I would presume that there are, indeed, a lot of either government programs, or those receiving government grants and funding that are in fact doing so.

There is an ATS member here who works for a private firm that is in the industry that is responsible for continued, and ongoing, sampling and testing of all sorts of air and ground samples, forma multitude of reasons. I presume they are related to (in the USA) compliance with EPA rules and standards in terms of reporting and documentation reasons.

Also, there is this:

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory



"Located in Richland, Washington, PNNL is one among ten U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories managed by DOE's Office of Science."



Some of their research.

Energy and Environment

Research in Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join