Welcome
Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

dialogue and research on chemical trails

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:39 am

Uri wrote:Hello Jazzroc,

I haven't seen a single chemtrail (or as you insist:contrail) since I am in Chile. This may be due to less air traffic here in general, but even the occasional regular passenger planes don't leave any trails whatsoever. I never pretended to be an expert and always pointed out that I come to my conclusion through the observations I make. The weather conditions are pretty similar to our european weather, only that it's late summer over here instead of late winter. How do you explain that aircraft trails are completely absent in Chile? It amazed me and I can assure you that I haven't seen such a blue sky in many many years. As you know I am from Germany and for me there is no other way to discribe the german sky than as being "sprayed" with whatever you think it is, but it is also a fact that it has a negative effect on the sky in Europe. One is that sunlight can seldomly pass through the thick layers of these trails. Even though we have discussed this issue extensively in the past, I still believe that something is not being told to the general public. I don't wish to have a confrontation with you here or in any other placeof the internet. I hope you can except my decision to trust my guts and observations on this and wish you and your family all the best in the future. Uri

You're in Chile? Fantastic! I'm dead jealous...

If you check out the "24 hrs of world aviation" videos you can see that very few flights overfly Chile.

That winter/summer thing is very weird. I experienced the same thing a couple of years ago when I visited S. Africa. The other part of the experience is that you automatically treat South as North.

There are very few overflights here in the Canaries, and just the occasional persistent trail, but so far I've never seen a "white-out" here in seven years.

I agree with you that when that happens it is depressing. Perhaps less so in England where once I counted 156 consecutive days without ever seeing the Sun.

I didn't enjoy our confrontations, cringed when I discovered you were here, and don't intend to confront you either.

My family is well, and all here around me at present, as my elder daughter has taken up an art-teacher post at the local school.

Good luck on your travels, take lots of pics, and show me the ones you're pleased with. Take care... :)
anthony.r.duncan
 

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Fri Feb 27, 2009 9:16 am

socrates wrote:sulfur, barium, salt, aluminum and whatnot are natural, there is a wiggle room to use them

Methyl sulfide (evaporated from the sea - it's phytoplankton "exhaust") seeds most clouds on Earth. Apart from that Sulfur isn't found in the environment, except hydrogen sulfide as part of the gases bubbling out of swamps and tundra. The rest (sulfur oxides) arise from the burning of fossil fuels, or volcano exhaust. Barium would normally only be found in the dust of barium-mining areas (I remember that featuring in a CT vid), so examples of it elsewhere would be immediately suspicious. Aluminum silicate is a constituent of CLAY, and salt from the sea will be found in soils many miles inland from the nearest coast. There would be no way to argue the latter two were unusual.

say elevated levels of barium are found, or disease clusters with ties to heavy metals

That would attract heavy media attention immediately. More especially in Europe. The groundwater in parts of Italy has much metal in it. Hot volcanic groundwater always has. Larderellero...

What happens if active volcanos go nuts when geoengineering takes place? We are screwed

We certainly could be! Isn't that a reason for it not happening at present?

I'm not against all "mitigation" ideas. Planting trees makes sense. Maybe dumping the iron thingies into the ocean makes sense. Going to renewable energies yesterday is the answer. The status quo is the problem.

We're in complete agreement here.

One other thing, climate change is now considered an issue of national security. That implies that the environmental issues are now in the hands of the military and their university ties. This means that all types of "mitigation" programs could be put in place without any exposure or accountability. Colin Powell even said back in 2002 that the US was working on billion dollar technologies to off-set greenhouse gases. And all the while solar, wind, etc. are being shown no love.

And here...

We are saying the white-outs are occuring in the troposphere, where most weather occurs.

I have seen you wrong here with my own eyes. When I first noticed "white-outs" (early eighties) I was particularly concerned to observe them. They are CIRRUS in origin, and cirrus is NOT a tropospheric cloud. Cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals.

The Discovery Channel did no such thing. They gave the bait and switch, at first offering to capture some of the suspect plumes for testing. Then they went with the jet fuel angle to try to figure out the white-outs. The commercial fuel came out clean. The military refused to give samples of their fuel.

Someone MUST capture a plume to finalize this, I agree. The military shouldn't be expected to relinquish information.

even I have been able to learn some basic scientific ideas on my blogospheric path.

And that encourages me.

This shouldn't be an us versus them dialogue. You get more bees with honey. No one likes to be verbally abused or belittled as tiny thinkers.

So they must think big. Big thinking doesn't argue with science - unless it IS science.

I believe there is always the capacity for folks to change, but if <snip> Lord of the Debunkers {and onions}.

So change. Science isn't a faith, but there is a wrong way and a right way. If you "chemtrail" while holding science in disrespect, than you are CHICKEN LITTLE. The sky will fall on YOUR head.
anthony.r.duncan
 

Re: Don Smith

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:09 am

[quote="socrates"]Don Smith quit this place after I uncovered a bizarre domain called top10th.net.

Who he? What that?

As for the salt spraying, could that get into fresh water supplies?

The salt molecules seed fresh water droplets. A SINGLE salt molecule (per raindrop) would be DAMN NEAR undetectable. You'd call the water FRESH. You'd call it spring water! :)

all the while plotting to destroy the place from within

Where, in my case? :D

went crawling back to Fintan Dunne, a rightwinger in progressive, tinfoil clothes.

Would you call a green permacultural "It's OK to **** in your compost!" anarcho-syndicalist right- or left-wing?

I haven't heard nice things about Fintan Dunne, and he's even uglier than I am. (Looking ahead :) )
anthony.r.duncan
 

Re: Noctilucent Clouds

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:56 am

socrates wrote:this isn't debate club.

No, it's where you tell me the way things are, boss.

Basic science tells us that anthropogenic clouds can be produced when pollution particles latch onto moisture and then grow.
Not so much "can" as "must".

I don't agree.

Well this is an important point. Use of the word "can" implies that particles may choose NOT to latch on. They have no choice. They WILL latch on. This process happens with the millions upon millions of tons of fine ash that is spewed out of the world's fifteen hundred active volcanoes. If the process were optional in some way we'd be up to our eyes in the stuff. Droplets bring particulates DOWN.


The Appleman Contrail Chart gives a good rough estimate

Sadly, this isn't so. It gives a very rough estimate indeed, presupposing an "averaged" stratosphere. You can't "average" data to make a specific prediction.

I've seen this done a bunch of times into clear blue sky with little to no humidity.

In the troposphere? Are you telling me aircraft are cruising in the troposphere? Or are you assuming that because humidity is low in the troposphere, then it is also low in the stratosphere (where aircraft cruise)?

If you're gonna use science to debunk, please don't hate when science is used to confirm.

OK. But where have you used science to confirm chemtrails? I must have missed it.
Whereas:
From the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”:
[url]www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf[/url]
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.”
That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material. Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons? So where does the rest come from? The answer is OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE! (As I've been saying!)

Now the reason why contrails are not chemtrails, even though the same basic principles are in place, is because there is simply not enough mass in the commercial jetliner exhaust to account for the size and development of man-made clouds.

Then you disagree with research findings that the mass of exhaust ice can increase one-thousand- to ten-thousandfold (edit) by further accretion of ice from a supersaturated stratospheric layer? Even when some of these precede "chemtrails" by decades?

Are you aware that a single 3000-mile jumbo flight can release eighty thousand tons of ice?


This gets to be too much.


Why do you keep mentioning the stratosphere, when the activities are being witnessed in the troposphere?

Why do you keep mentioning the troposphere, when all aircraft fly and cruise in the stratosphere, only returning to the troposphere to land?

Have you ever witnessed a white-out created during a blue sky day?

I've told you so.

Why mention mesospheres and exospheres?

No. YOU've mentioned those, to draw attention away from the fact that the temperature line can be seen RISING from the tropopause. It is because it does that, that the stratosphere is very different and distinct from the troposphere that lies beneath it.

The white-outs are predominantly taking place in the upper troposphere, not the stratosphere. You can go to the Wyoming weather domain and see how it predominantly gets much colder from 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000 to 40,000 feet.

No. No planes cruise at all in the upper troposphere because it is more turbulent, more uncomfortable for passengers, and more dangerous for the aircraft. Whiteouts are caused by aircraft. Aircraft cruise in the stratosphere. Whiteouts occur in the stratosphere. The tropopause (where the air temperature is at a minimum) occurs around 26,000 feet over Wyoming.

Tony, I can barely contain myself from yawning. If "chemtrails" is such a crazy hoax, why do some like yourself spend so much time debunking?

I've nothing better to do right now.

I'm finding this whole exercise to be a waste of time. Nothing personal.

Yes, it's tedious communicating with someone who's attempting to straighten you out.

this guy. Tony sounds like a spook, of the nothing to see here, move along variety. Talk about a ridiculous strawman. More nothing to see here, move along. Tony wants us thinking about NASA as going for the final frontier. Space weapons? He thinks I'm watching too much of the Jetsons. And why shouldn't I kick you out at this point? You have some nerve throwing out ad hominems, and yes, evoking authority. This guy sounds very much like Yaak/Ed Snell, and FoolsBane/BryanSails. He seems to be having a difficult time holding back from being a meanie. Is it time to roll out Captain Kirk's evil twin again?

(Sucks air through teeth.)
anthony.r.duncan
 

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby socrates » Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:47 pm

anthony.r.duncan wrote:
say elevated levels of barium are found, or disease clusters with ties to heavy metals


That would attract heavy media attention immediately. More especially in Europe.



I agree the US media is not as open as that found in Europe. Like just by looking at conservative papers, the English speaking ones, I saw that they were less tabloidish than the rags we get here in the States.

Have you seen this one?

Chronic barium intoxication disrupts sulphated proteoglycan synthesis: a hypothesis for the origins of multiple sclerosis.



What happens if active volcanos go nuts when geoengineering takes place? We are screwed

We certainly could be! Isn't that a reason for it not happening at present?



I'm surprised you haven't looked more into this rather than the dead-end chemtrails versus contrails debates.

It's like with global warming. The deniers trot out their small list of scientists and political operatives in an attempt to turn the undebatable into an enigma.

I think it's fairly accepted that Frankensteinian geoengineering ideas are no good. But there has been a push to cover up the Dr. Evil part of it, from Paul Crutzen to guys like Wigley and Benford.


One other thing, climate change is now considered an issue of national security. That implies that the environmental issues are now in the hands of the military and their university ties. This means that all types of "mitigation" programs could be put in place without any exposure or accountability. Colin Powell even said back in 2002 that the US was working on billion dollar technologies to off-set greenhouse gases. And all the while solar, wind, etc. are being shown no love.

And here...

We are saying the white-outs are occuring in the troposphere, where most weather occurs.

I have seen you wrong here with my own eyes. When I first noticed "white-outs" (early eighties) I was particularly concerned to observe them. They are CIRRUS in origin, and cirrus is NOT a tropospheric cloud. Cirrus clouds are composed of ice crystals.



You dodged the Colin Powell information. Plus, it's fascinating that you were one of the first persons to notice the white-outs. And no, let's not start talking about the WW2 bombers and that element of the circular never-ending debate. Patrick Minnis and NASA didn't start to cover this topic until around 1999 with their SUCCESS thingamajig. Pat even said in an interview that he thinks that report might have started the "chemtrail" hoax.

I am in an area which has gotten plenty of white-outs, though not so much this year.

I have seen these "clouds" created into clear blue sky with no humidity. I have seen crazy patterns. The aircraft have been low enough to see that many of them are white with a t-tail. They have been low enough that on occasion I could see the stuff coming directly out of the tail.

There used to be a video by Skywatch at youtube which was the closest evidence yet that trails were being generated out of the tail and not from the engines.

You can keep shouting that all of us chemmies are mistaken and don't have a clue about science or whatever you want to, but as I have said earlier, this is not debate club. You seem rather eager to gloss over the difference between troposphere and stratosphere. You might garner more credibility with newbies and fence-sitters, if you stopped evoking authority and making absolute pronouncements about what others claim.

I don't want to ban anyone, but I don't like your subtle jabs being thrown out. You may think I am incorrect, but talking about what you've seen in the eighties and saying that proves me wrong, or jabbing me as uninformed and not into science, logic, or reason is troll-like behaviour. On another thread in the Chemtrails are not kooky section, I offered you some other forums which might fill your desire to duke it out with chemmies. This is not the place for that.

You say you cringed when you saw Uri was here. I don't like that. No one needs to be attacked, no matter how subtly it is done.


Someone MUST capture a plume to finalize this, I agree. The military shouldn't be expected to relinquish information.


But then you have the slippery slope of national security. The military should not be above the law.

One of the reasons I believe I have been viciously attacked on the internet is for being a peacenik and very anti-military. I don't believe in any secrecy. I believe the military is the biggest scam of all, even worse than the corporations. Anyway, C. Wright Mills was right on in saying that there is an Iron Triangle between the corporate, the military, and the executive. So maybe apples and oranges can be put into the same fruit basket.

even I have been able to learn some basic scientific ideas on my blogospheric path.

And that encourages me.


Condescension will not help you remain here. I'd like you to pack your bags and get ready to leave.


I believe there is always the capacity for folks to change, but if <snip> Lord of the Debunkers {and onions}.

So change. Science isn't a faith, but there is a wrong way and a right way. If you "chemtrail" while holding science in disrespect, than you are CHICKEN LITTLE. The sky will fall on YOUR head.



You have a lot of nerve, Mr. Youtube Spammer.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Don Smith

Unread postby socrates » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:00 pm

[quote="anthony.r.duncan"][quote="socrates"]Don Smith quit this place after I uncovered a bizarre domain called top10th.net.

Who he? What that?


He's the guy you responded to in an earlier post, if I'm not mistaken.

If you go to the astroturfing section, check out the thread on top10th.net.

I am no one-trick pony.

The only reason this is a chemtrail forum first, is because the founders here felt there was a need for the world to know that there are chemmies who don't go for the crazy theories of depopulation, mind-control, ufos, orgone bullshite, etc..

As for the salt spraying, could that get into fresh water supplies?

The salt molecules seed fresh water droplets. A SINGLE salt molecule (per raindrop) would be DAMN NEAR undetectable. You'd call the water FRESH. You'd call it spring water! :)


Nice one.


all the while plotting to destroy the place from within

Where, in my case? :D


Don't worry about it.



went crawling back to Fintan Dunne, a rightwinger in progressive, tinfoil clothes.

Would you call a green permacultural "It's OK to **** in your compost!" anarcho-syndicalist right- or left-wing?

I haven't heard nice things about Fintan Dunne, and he's even uglier than I am. (Looking ahead :) )



How bout a few links? I like The Guardian or whatever you can come up with. Then I'll share my opinion.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Re: Noctilucent Clouds

Unread postby socrates » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:35 pm

I don't have the time to go back and see if you took me out of context. If there isn't a basic level of humidity and temperature, such particles have nothing to latch onto and will have to contend with the laws of gravity.

Also, I already had to fix one of your posts where you messed up with the quote codes. If you can't get those right, please stop quoting so much and just make your points.

The Appleman Contrail Chart gives a good rough estimate

Sadly, this isn't so. It gives a very rough estimate indeed, presupposing an "averaged" stratosphere. You can't "average" data to make a specific prediction.


The white-outs are taking place predominantly in the upper to mid troposphere, where most of our weather takes place.

There's no need to keep going around in circles duking it out on this one point.


I've seen this done a bunch of times into clear blue sky with little to no humidity.

In the troposphere? Are you telling me aircraft are cruising in the troposphere? Or are you assuming that because humidity is low in the troposphere, then it is also low in the stratosphere (where aircraft cruise)?


I don't have time for this. I'm not waking up each day looking forward to interacting with you.

It doesn't matter whatever any "chemmie" says. You will find a way to circumscribe it into your talking points.

Since you are stuck in the stratosphere, this whole exercise is moot.



Why mention mesospheres and exospheres?

No. YOU've mentioned those, to draw attention away from the fact that the temperature line can be seen RISING from the tropopause. It is because it does that, that the stratosphere is very different and distinct from the troposphere that lies beneath it.



I have gone to the Wyoming soundings a few times for approximate readings. The temperature dramatically increased from the ground to troposphere into the stratosphere. You posted a graph which included areas of the sky that have nothing to do with the discussion, not me.



The white-outs are predominantly taking place in the upper troposphere, not the stratosphere. You can go to the Wyoming weather domain and see how it predominantly gets much colder from 10,000 to 20,000 to 30,000 to 40,000 feet.

No. No planes cruise at all in the upper troposphere because it is more turbulent, more uncomfortable for passengers, and more dangerous for the aircraft. Whiteouts are caused by aircraft. Aircraft cruise in the stratosphere. Whiteouts occur in the stratosphere. The tropopause (where the air temperature is at a minimum) occurs around 26,000 feet over Wyoming.



The readings come from a Wyoming University domain, but one can click on the station info from their own areas.



Tony, I can barely contain myself from yawning. If "chemtrails" is such a crazy hoax, why do some like yourself spend so much time debunking?

I've nothing better to do right now.

I'm finding this whole exercise to be a waste of time. Nothing personal.

Yes, it's tedious communicating with someone who's attempting to straighten you out.



Please do it elsewhere.

Again, with the condescension. Get to packing, dude.


this guy. Tony sounds like a spook, of the nothing to see here, move along variety. Talk about a ridiculous strawman. More nothing to see here, move along. Tony wants us thinking about NASA as going for the final frontier. Space weapons? He thinks I'm watching too much of the Jetsons. And why shouldn't I kick you out at this point? You have some nerve throwing out ad hominems, and yes, evoking authority. This guy sounds very much like Yaak/Ed Snell, and FoolsBane/BryanSails. He seems to be having a difficult time holding back from being a meanie. Is it time to roll out Captain Kirk's evil twin again?


(Sucks air through teeth.)



Hey, maybe you have nothing to do with a disinformation campaign that has been uncovered by this humble forum. I am all for freedom of speech and association. But I am also into folks having the right to not have to deal with someone, if they don't want to. That's why it's near time for me to file a police report against Louis Aubuchont for sending cyberstalking emails to one of my accounts.

Seriously and sincerely, go sign up to DebateBothSides, Democratic Underground {Sept. 11th forum}, Randi Rhodes {conspiracy theory forum}, or make guest posts at Chemtrail Central. I'm not into this Tony. While you have all this free time to "debate" me here, I have other internet priorities. There's a big wide world blogosphere out there. I have the right to not have you here as a member. Mmmkay?
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

socrates wrote:I agree the US media is not as open as that found in Europe. Like just by looking at conservative papers, the English speaking ones, I saw that they were less tabloidish than the rags we get here in the States.

I quit buying English newspapers in the mid-seventies when I noticed they contradicted themselves cynically over the Northern Ireland situation. Every contradiction meant the death of someone, or of several people. To discover this you only had to keep your newspapers and overlay them about three months apart.


Mark Purdey has turned up in the past wrt CTs and I have ignored it. To tell the truth I thought he was kooky. I've changed my mind about that, but I'm not sure about the "clustering" attributes wrt the respective situations. I think he was a keen and intelligent activism-inclined organic farmer with a better eye on the ball than several large organizations which if not opposing, certainly didn't help him. He had a large history of relevant experience in a related field (BSE and that terrible time. The idea that it was safe to feed cattle meat protein freaked me out utterly in 1982) and was obviously on to something, when he died suddenly of a brain tumor, which is a great disappointment. My sister, aged 62, is in the terminal stages of MS - blind, deaf, totally paralyzed - but beautifully looked after in a state-of-the-art specialized hospital in Madrid. Strangely, she retains the whole of her memory up to about fifteen years ago, but since that point day-to-day stuff is no longer retained.

I'm surprised you haven't looked more into this rather than the dead-end chemtrails versus contrails debates. It's like with global warming. The deniers trot out their small list of scientists and political operatives in an attempt to turn the undebatable into an enigma. I think it's fairly accepted that Frankensteinian geoengineering ideas are no good. But there has been a push to cover up the Dr. Evil part of it, from Paul Crutzen to guys like Wigley and Benford.

A year and a half ago I knew nothing at all about "chemtrails". These names I don't know.

You dodged the Colin Powell information.

No I didn't. I agreed with you entirely.

Plus, it's fascinating that you were one of the first persons to notice the white-outs.

Sarcasm noted. I was making and flying model aircraft in 1951 down this slope.
Image
I nearly joined the RAF as a fighter pilot, but was short-sighted. I've always loved the sky. Astronomy I like too.

Pat even said in an interview that he thinks that report might have started the "chemtrail" hoax.

He's written (or co-written with dozens of others) 153 papers on atmospheric science. Did you know that?

I am in an area which has gotten plenty of white-outs, though not so much this year. I have seen these "clouds" created into clear blue sky with no humidity. I have seen crazy patterns. The aircraft have been low enough to see that many of them are white with a t-tail. They have been low enough that on occasion I could see the stuff coming directly out of the tail. There used to be a video by Skywatch at youtube which was the closest evidence yet that trails were being generated out of the tail and not from the engines.

In the tail there's an auxiliary power unit (a small gas turbine) which can generate a trail when it's running. It doesn't have to run all the time - it depends on the apron service situation at the airfield. Don't poke my snake either...

You seem rather eager to gloss over the difference between troposphere and stratosphere.

What? Remember John McEnroe?

making absolute pronouncements about what others claim.

Ha! When they're transparently unscientific - no!

You say you cringed when you saw Uri was here. I don't like that. No one needs to be attacked, no matter how subtly it is done.

She's the only person to label me a mass-murderer. How would YOU react?

But then you have the slippery slope of national security. The military should not be above the law.

You do, but the military's primary role is to prevent attack. In 2001 it FAILED.

One of the reasons I believe I have been viciously attacked on the internet is for being a peacenik and very anti-military. I don't believe in any secrecy. I believe the military is the biggest scam of all, even worse than the corporations. Anyway, C. Wright Mills was right on in saying that there is an Iron Triangle between the corporate, the military, and the executive. So maybe apples and oranges can be put into the same fruit basket.

It can only be as good as the quality of the people that run it. So that's OK, then.

Condescension will not help you remain here. I'd like you to pack your bags and get ready to leave.

Been there. Done that. :)

You have a lot of nerve, Mr. Youtube Spammer.

I preferred you as a Greek.
anthony.r.duncan
 

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby socrates » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:50 pm

I've posted the Colin Powell quote a lot. Here it is again.

We are committed not just to rhetoric and to various goals, we are committed to a billion-dollar program to develop and deploy advanced technologies to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions,


From earlier in the 2002 International Herald Tribune article by Barry James in regards to the 2002 Johannesburgh Summit:

But the lack of specific objectives and fixed timetables in the final plan — particularly on energy issues — left environmentalist groups unhappy. Friends of the Earth accused the United States of wrecking the summit by refusing timetables or targets for introducing renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and wave power.

The activists' dissatisfaction with the United States was evident in the reception given to Powell. Protesters shouted and slowly clapped hands, and a security guard dragged at least five from the plenary chamber, as Powell sought to assert the U.S. government's commitment to the environment.




From the wayback machine:

{fair use- educational excerpt}


Image
Cooling The Planet
PALO ALTO, Calif., Jan. 15, 2000

(CBS) Scientists dealing with global warming are looking at drastic solutions for the problem, including manipulating earth's atmosphere on a massive scale, CBS News Correspondent Jerry Bowen reports.

And the problem is serious, climate scientists say. If current trends continue, the Earth's average surface temperature will be 2.7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit higher in 100 years, they project.

One solution envisions blasting tiny particles into the atmosphere from the guns of battleships. The particles would deflect enough sunlight to trigger global cooling. Another falls under the category of "geo-engineering": launching 50,000 mirrors into orbit to reflect sunlight back into space.

"The sooner, the better," says Dr. Edward Teller, a promoter of the plan. Teller, who helped harness the destructive power of the atom 60 years ago, now believes man can dim the power of the sun.

"The simplest is to put into the high atmosphere small particles that scatter away one or two percent of the sunlight,"he says.

Teller's colleague at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, climate researcher Ken Caldeira, had hoped to prove Teller wrong.

"My first thoughts about this was that it simply wouldn't work," he says.

Then he ran the computer models, Caldeira says.

"Much to our surprise, our model results indicated that geo-engineering schemes would move our climate back to what it was before," he says.

Back to cooler temperatures, that is. And Caldeira says the best way to go about it is by "putting a huge satellite out in space between earth and sun."

That could mean putting the device where the SOHO satellite is now observing the sun's solar storms. The huge solar shield would act as an orbiting sunshade to cool the earth.....
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Got Proof?

Unread postby socrates » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:55 pm

Tony Duncan wrote:She's the only person to label me a mass-murderer. How would YOU react?



If you have proof, please provide, or kindly stfu.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

PreviousNext

Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred