Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering

reply to post by burntheships


Your concern about acid rain is commendable. However there remains no evidence for stratospheric spraying of suphur or any other aerosols. On the other hand, if you're that concerned about the environment and the air we breathe, do you drive a car? (I don't )

reply to post by Essan

On the other hand, if you're that concerned about the environment and the air we breathe, do you drive a car?

Not this derailment tactic again!
Good for you for not needing an automobile in your daily life whether or not it was by your choice or a decision that was forced upon you.

Attacking the posters is the worst debate form to exhibit.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

We know that sulfate can cool the Earth......

Normally I'd say that chopping off the content to that extreme would obscure the
content to such a point it would be impossible to discuss,

However I'll just take that as an admission of guilt.

Unless of course you would like to quantify that they dont really know,
they have only modeled it.

Right?

reply to post by burntheships


Non sequiter

There is no evidence of actual physical trials and, indeed, if you thing logically how could trials take place in the real world? You can't just spray a bit of the Earth and see what happens, you have to do it on a global scale over a period of time. Hence why we use computer models to simulate the effects.

And that, like it or not, is where we are at present. IMHO that's where we should stay.

reply to post by burntheships

I dont see that he formed a non profit organization!

You think people don't get rich from non-profits?

I mean, there have been literally hundreds if not thousands of these "computer modeling"
studies done and nearly all NATO countries have taken up the idea of Geoengineering.

Really? NATO is chomping at the bit to get started?
I guess the UN moratorium is just lip service.

reply to post by Afterthought


I'm not attacking anyone. I asked a simple question. You then attacked me.

Do you fly?

We also need to keep up with the Kyoto Protocol and its latest developments.

From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The UNFCCC is an international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving the "stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[5]

The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of September 2011, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[6] The only remaining signatory not to have ratified the protocol is the United States. Other United Nations member states which did not ratify the protocol are Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan. In December 2011, Canada denounced the Protocol.[2]

Latest reports and documents regarding the Kyoto Protocol:
unfccc.int...

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Afterthought

 

I'm not attacking anyone. I asked a simple question. You then attacked me.

Do you fly?

The point he is making is valid. You come into discussion of this topic and derail by adding several meaningless posts, baiting people, and generally adding nothing but pushing back good posts so people who come into the thread new wont' see them.

Please feel free to contribute to the topics we are discussing, it would be refreshing

Geoeningeering is an extreemly important topic that needs to be brought out. I would welcome other voices to the discussion. Billionairs like Bill Gates have the money to do this on thier own, and Gates' record speaks for itself... he has a poison touch, not a golden one. He has been active in a lot of nefarious activities that are easily found here on ats by googling him or better usign startpage: link

Geoengineering is a potentially lethal topic, and we need to engage in this discussion!!!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

I mean, there have been literally hundreds if not thousands of these "computer modeling"
studies done and nearly all NATO countries have taken up the idea of Geoengineering.

Really? NATO is chomping at the bit to get started?
I guess the UN moratorium is just lip service.

edit on 2/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Are you that desperate to twist my words, and try that amateur tactic?

I said NATO countries have taken up the idea of Geoengineering

And yes, Non Profits can rake in big bucks, but Gates Corporation is not a NP.

reply to post by burntheships

My apologies. I thought by "taken up" you meant that NATO countries endorse geoengineering. Was I mistaken?

reply to post by Phage

My apologies. I thought by "taken up" you meant that NATO countries endorse geoengineering. Was I mistaken?

They have taken up the idea and they have practically shoved it down our throats, and the
third world countries throats too!

They have created official policy on Geoengineering,
they have used the words "governence" and have commisioned studies, and
created scads of panels, etc, ad nauseum.



downloads.globalchange.gov...

Yeah, and they have the Carbon Credit Market all lined up too!

there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming. www.fieldandstream.com...

reply to post by burntheships

They have created official policy on Geoengineering, they have used the words "governence" and have commisioned studies, and created scads of panels, etc, ad nauseum.

Oh I see. By "taken up" you mean that they are aware of geoengineering proposals and research and are working on developing policy. Similar to the way the UN has developed a policy on it.

But it seems to me that overall, geoengineering is occupying a pretty small corner of the research on climate. A lot more is aimed (from both sides of the fence) at determining what the "true" cause may be and the rate at which it is occurring.

I think that carbon credits are a stupid idea.

reply to post by pianopraze


On the contrary, I come into the debate offering scientific studies and actual data, as opposed to unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracy theories.

Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it?

The Sheeple aren't so easy to control when doubt sets in, are they? Big Brother's get worried .....

Originally posted by Phage

But it seems to me that overall, geoengineering is occupying a pretty small corner of the research on climate.

I think that carbon credits are a stupid idea.

Growing bigger every week, well sure they still have to spend a large majority of media
hype scaring folks into thinking about Climate Change, and keeping the Global Warming
Myth alive.

"Stupid' as in no merit, or "Stupid" in thats is a giant scam? Or.....?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by burntheships

 

My apologies. I thought by "taken up" you meant that NATO countries endorse geoengineering. Was I mistaken?

Let's see, does this paper qualify:

Schwartz and Slingo, 1996 S.E. Schwartz and A. Slingo In: P. Crutzen, Editor, Clouds, Chemistry and Climate: Proceedings of NATO Advanced Research Workshop (1996).

While I can't pull that up directly, I can pull up some VERY interesting papers that use it as a reference:

Influence of anthropogenic aerosol on cloud optical depth and albedo shown by satellite measurements and chemical transport modeling]

Aerosol Influence on Cloud Microphysics Examined by Satellite Measurements and Chemical Transport Modeling

This paper shows that NATO are clearly one of the bodies that would be in control:

It does not for example, recommend that the UN Security Council, NATO, the G20, the US Congress start working on geoengineering guidlines

Some Early Ethics of Geoengineering on the Climate

Relating to OP, here is David Keith... slimy bastard talking about geoengineering I found while searching:
video link


Going on, here is NATO publication studying forcing from volcano's... the basis for SRM ideas:
he Mount Pinatubo Eruption: Effects on the Atmosphere and Climate (G. Fiocco, D. Fua, and G. Visconti, Ed.). NATO ASI Series Vol. I 42, pp. 233-272.

reply to post by burntheships


I think that like myself Phage means stupid as in they won't make any difference.

Originally posted by piotrburz
I'm not a geoengineering specialist, but chemistry says that it could be harmful.
Ozone is powerful oxidant, that produces free hydroxyl radicals when exposed to ultraviolet and in
the presence of water vapor.

Since the sulfur dioxide will be deployed OVER the ozone layers, it should fall onto it, as it is
heavier[have greater molar density] than air and ozone. When sulfur dioxide meets hydroxyl radical,
it will produce sulfur trioxide and hydroperoxyl radical.

When sulfur trioxide will drop low enough, it will meet droplets of water[rain] and produce sulfuric acid[VI] as a result.
If they say CO2 is bad, how about acid rains?

Very good quesitons. I am fairly certian that the scientists who propose using Sulfate Aerosols
are aware of this, and dont want this to become the firm thoughts of the public!

Public Opinion Court of Approval Controllers will appear to ignore your quesitons!

reply to post by pianopraze


So can I conclude that like me (and, I believe, most scientists who have looked into the subject) you are strongly opposed to suggested geoengineering schemes? Why are we fighting?

We only disagree on the likelihood of such schemes ever taking place - you seem to think they've been going for decades (?) and I think (hope) they'll never happen.

Am I wrong?

reply to post by burntheships

And of course, no money is being spent to convince people that warming is not occurring or that if it is, CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it.

Stupid in that it allows wealthy producers of CO2 to continue producing CO2. I don't think that the concept is based on sound science. I'm not convinced that it does what it is supposed to do, result in a net decrease (or cap) of CO2 emission.

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by pianopraze

 

On the contrary, I come into the debate offering scientific studies and actual data, as opposed to unsubstantiated paranoid conspiracy theories.

Ah, but that's the problem, isn't it?

The Sheeple aren't so easy to control when doubt sets in, are they? Big Brother's get worried .....

edit on 7-2-2012 by Essan because: (no reason given)

Hmm... looking at my posts, and your posts, I do see one of us is posting hard scientific papers, the other is offering glib comments... which one is doing which?


Here's another fascinating on, topic paper I just found reinforcing my point to you. This is an important topic and dangerious... we need to bring awareness and stop this!

There is significant ozone depletion above 30 km and a compensating recovery below, with basically no change in total column ozone. Explicit modeling of dynamic feedbacks and diurnal cycle is required for a more definitive evaluation. Ozone depletion is of concern, being associated with increased rates of skin cancer (20), and detrimental impact on vege- tation (21) and the marine environment (22).

Some Radiative Aspects of Proposed
Geoengineering Countermeasures
to Global Warming

Interestingly enough, the paper suggest using high altitude balloons, which, as BTS has shown THEY ALREADY HAVE MADE... and are ready for implementation:

How would geoengineering aerosols be deployed? Even for lower stratospheric deployment, aircraft use is hardly feasible. Ultra-High Altitude Balloons (UHABs) of million cubic meter (MCM) capacity (31) set to rupture above 40 km altitude would be able to transport H2S, a common impurity in natural gas, which, as a 4:1 mixture with H2, would be buoyant in air. UHAB payload to 40 km is only 1-2 tons of H2S and/or soot per shot, perhaps requiring rocket assisted transport.

So please feel free to add good sources as you suggest you do