|chemtrails or fixing the sky with flawed technologies19-12-2010 19:28
"Thus I descended out of the first circle
Down to the second, that less space begirds,
And so much greater dole, that goads to wailing...
I came into a place mute of all light"
Dante Alighieri, Inferno: Canto V
Imagine a world where the pristine blue sky and natural diversity will vanish forever.
Well some corporations, experts and politicians work hard for this to become realty, without even consulting us.
I was wondering especially the last few months what happens to the sky. Either several planes assault it and spray long, persistent white lines or a surrealistic heavy, bluish-grey haze that lasts sometimes for several days covers the sky. As soon the haze begins to clear, the white lines reoccur and spread vastly on large areas in the sky, covering the sun in a couple of hours with strange haze again. The most popular name for the white lines is chemtrails, but in the scientific literature, they are a subcategory of geoengineering technologies.
In my search after scientific evidence of their existence, the term chemtrails have occurred just once: "We should not imagine that there is a "public" out there that is hostile to geoengineering: the case is that there are two small minorities that are hostile to geoengineering, and a large public that is unaware. The two smaller publics I speak of are the people concerned with chemtrails, and the environmental activists, who are in a few ways similar but in many ways very different. They are similar in that they are skeptical of those in power, but the activists have credibility1."
1 What Can Geoengineering Do for Us? Public participation and the new media landscape, Holly Jean Buck, 2010, p 6
3 Cooling the Earth Through Solar Radiation Management, International risk governance council Switzerland 2010, p.4
The scientists and politicians admit however, that no one is enthusiastic about changing the reflectivity (albedo) of the planet through geoengineering technology, if the reality of climate change and the lack of international consensus on cutting green house gases emission will not make it imperative3. They claim that population growth has depleted natural resources and strained the natural systems that sustain the Earth‟s carrying capacity, instead
of making references to the incompatible lifestyle created by advertizing, consumerism and industrialization.
Emergency is always used as an excuse for the deployment of flawed technologies under the generic name geoengineering as a rapid response to global warming. Geoengineering is defined as the intentional large scale technological manipulation of the Earths systems and can be divided into two main categories: Solar radiation Management (SRM) that aim at reflecting a small percentage of the sun light back into space and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) techniques that sequestrate CO2 from the atmosphere.
None of those methods deal with the real cause that generates climate crisis. "Put it simply, geoengineering is a technological fix on a grand scale" (D. Keith, University of Calgary, 2001). Systems should be protected and restored instead.
SMR proposals fall into different categories too, such as putting reflective particles into the atmosphere, putting mirrors in space, increasing surface reflectivity or altering the characteristics of the clouds.
Those methods are not reducing an emission, which is the source of the problem. It reduces the need to tax emissions and buys the main polluters more time. Time to worsen the climate crisis and to allow more polluting gases into the atmosphere, while local communities are not properly involved into decision making, although the disruption of the ecosystems is going to affect us all4. More CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the push to supply even more geoengineering.
4 Geopiracy 2010, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/pdf_file/ETC_geopiracy2010_0.pdf
5 Effect of Stratospheric Aerosols on Direct Sunlight and Implications for Concentrating Solar Power, M. Murphy, 2009. p.2 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802206b
6 Statement on geoengineering, its potential uses, costs and side effects, 2008 http://implicc.zmaw.de/Science.671.0.html
Using reflective pollution to modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere is one of the most popular geoengineering technologies, aimed to counter some of the effects of green house gases. But also one of the most controversial. Its popularity is due to the idea of simulating a "natural" process by inducing artificial volcanoes. The intentional creation of an aerosol layer would need to produce particles between 0.2 and 1 μm in diameter. Smaller particles do not efficiently scatter light and larger particles are lost from the stratosphere due to gravitational settling5. Sulphate aerosol would build up, subsequently reflecting part of the solar radiation. It would chang the atmospheric energy budget, create diffuse sunlight and decrease the temperature at the Earth‟s surface. This is analogous to the climate effect associated with big volcanic eruptions6.
The most effective scatterers are considered to be SO2 (or SO3 or H2SO4) transported and dispersed into the stratosphere to produce the desired effect. It has also been suggested that alumina (Al2O3) injected into the stratosphere might scatter non-negligible amounts of sunlight. Stanford experts expect that introduction of scattering-optimized alumina particles into the stratosphere may well be overall competitive with the use of sulfur oxides; alumina particles offer a distinctly different environmental impact profile7.
7 Prospects For Physics-Based Modulation Of Global Change, 1997, p.11 http://patriotportal.yolasite.com/resources/chemtrail.pdf
8 Cloud Droplet Activation of Mixed Organic-Sulfate Particles, S.M. King et al., 2010
10 Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect, David Keith, ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT p.245, 2000.
"Geoengineering for carbon or climate will alter the abundance of water, biodiversity, and other things we value."– Dr. Robert Jackson, Geoengineering II: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges (2010)
Geoengineering entails risks and side effects. One consequence concerning the scientists in the above mentioned case would be a reduction in the effectiveness of passive solar design. Or do they? A less effective passive solar design and reduction of the efficiency of solar power generation systems means an increase of dependency upon centralized energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal, atomic). The individual choice of self-sustaining energy source will no longer be an option. Overall, the individual choice shrinks.
Diffuse solar radiation affects ecosystem productivity too, because reduced sunlight will disturb natural processes such as photosynthesis and the acidification of oceans as a consequence of increasing CO2 levels would not be stopped. In addition chemical inputs to the atmosphere could affect plant growth and soils; particles injected into the stratosphere, such as sulfates and salts, would eventually fall into the troposphere and "rain out" onto land and water surfaces below. In sufficient quantities, these materials could have negative impacts on both plants and soil content8. Interestingly the number of patent applications related to "climate-ready" genetically modified crops has increased drastically. In 2010 there exist 1650 patent documents of which 90% are held by the world‟s 3 largest chemical companies: Monsanto, DuPont and BASF. One of the newest patents includes aluminum resistant genetically modified crops!
If geoengineering is stopped, the temperature will rise rapidly.
Geoengineering could alter the environment in an unexpected way; there are too many uncertainties connected to the deployment of SRM since natural systems are very complex, fragile and interconnected.
Damage to the ozone layer: aerosols from stratospheric sulfate injections will exacerbate the effects of materials remaining in the atmosphere from the past usage of chlorofluorocarbons10 worsening
the depletion of the existing ozone layer. The depletion of the ozone layer may further increase the solar ultraviolet-B radiation, which carries a potential impact on health and biological populations11.
11 An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Rasch PJ, et al. 2008 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18757276
12 Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming. David L Mitchell and William Finnegan, 2009. P.6 http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102
13 A Test for Geoengineering? Atmospheric Science, Alan Robock et al. Jan. 2010. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.summary
14 The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options. M. Lenton and N. E. Vaughan, 2009. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/2559/2009/acpd-9-2559-2009.html
15 Climate Policy under Uncertainty. A Case for Geoengineering. Juan Moreno-Cruz and David W. Keith 2009. p.3 http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=morenocruz
The sky will no longer be blue due to blasting large amounts of particles into the stratosphere12.
An intentional sulfate (over)polluting including novel manufactured nanoparticles is also related to environmental save, health and air quality effects. "Sulfuric acid deposition may create health and regional problems" (Crutzen, 2006), though he admitted the cost of early death and health related issues were not calculated
Juan Moreno-Cruz and David W. Keith‟s study from 2009 prove that geoengineering will affect precipitation patterns and volumes, causing a decrease in precipitation over land and an increase in precipitation over the ocean (Bala et.al. 2009; Caldeira and Matthews, 2007; Trenberth and Dai, 2007); possibly causing droughts in large regions of the planet. We may remember that over the last few years since geoengineering testing were introduced vast stretches of Asia and Amazonia were affected by increased droughts.
However the only parameters of interest when revising the literature related to sulfate aerosol injections seems cost feasibility. In spite of profound and pervasive risks entailed by geoengineering, scientists argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation, even though such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale13 . Numerous studies highlight climate cooling effectiveness in terms of radioactive force potential14 and the fact that SRM is cheap enough that could be implemented by a single country or even a wealthy corporation. Victor (2008) argues that although implementation costs may be low, new costlier interventions may be needed to offset possible negative effects.
The "advantages" of SRM as a method to manage climate risks are considered to be twofold. First, it is inexpensive compared to mitigation, and second it allows rapid action avoiding some of the inertia of the carbon system15.
A few grams of sulphate particles in the stratosphere can offset the radiative forcing of a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere. It costs roughly $10 billion dollars to provide a cooling that counteracts the heating from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 - the mass of particles needed to counteract the
radiative effects of doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations is approximately 13000 tons a day injected into the stratosphere. That means costs of geoengineering are 1% of the costs of cutting emissions. Like the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, SRM can alter the global temperature within months16. But the CO2 related damages will occur even when temperature is stabilized.
16 A Look at Geoengineering Strategies, Aug. 2010. http://www.solarfeeds.com/cleanbeta/14045-a-look-at-geoengineering-strategies
18 Essays on the Economics of Geoengineering. Department of Economics, University of Calgary, Juan Moreno-Cruz (2009). P. 6
19 Cooling the Earth through Solar Radiation Management. P.16 http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/SRM_Opinion_Piece_web.pdf
Even though some geoengineering techniques may allow a country unilaterally to affect the climate and pose serious risk factors such as trans-boundary effect, the dispersal of potentially hazardous materials in the environment and the direct effect on ecosystems, geoengineering testing is already underway17 according to a Report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, March 2010.
Additionally it is interesting to mention that the possibility of "stratospheric war" in which countries engage in a series of geoengineering and counter-engineering experiments jeopardizing the stability of the climate and political systems18 is not addressed. And no study yet captures the possibility of catastrophic effects due to green house gasses accumulation or geoengineering full-scale implementation.
Any attempt to involve the public now runs into the problem of having to inform but especially form the public. Experts from Oxford and Cardiff consider that the institutional structures for including true public participation in global political decisions are underdeveloped and that democracy can be a slow, messy process that not everyone might agree on. If climate change really is a pressing urgency then is possible that by opening up geoengineering decisions to a large public, countries could be failing in their attempt to protect citizens from climate change! Buck (2010) p.5.
"The rich do not own the planet – and should not be allowed to use all the planet‟s resources for their own gain."
Several states decided that now is the time to approach the issues of global SRM governance based on earlier workshops and studies conducted by The International Risk Governance Council and the Royal Society in London, 2009 and agreed that it will not be appropriate to develop any treaty or formal regulatory scheme to govern research or the potential future deployment of SRM19. Scientists may proceed with SRM tests that fall into an "allowed zone" without formal international approval, subject only to the requirement that their studies are publicly announced and the results are made public.
Ironically the public experiment20 comprised of 80 participants, initiated by the Royal Society and supported by the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills designed to provide insights into the public‟s priorities and how their opinion is formed, when considering future communication of geoengineering research, had a clear feed-back:
"We do not have the right to affect others‟ living environments or animals„ecosystems",
20 Experiment Earth? Report on a Public Dialogue on Geoengineering. Aug. 2010. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/geoengineering-dialogue-final-report.pdf
21 http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080423/full/452930a.html or Follow a set of plasma experiments on: http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/s-ramp/abstract/s19.txt
"We do not have the right to interfere with complex and delicate ecosystems if we don‟t really understand all the variables that might be affected" p.37
The participants showed a low level of trust in scientists and politicians and argued that information and statistics could be easily manipulated to meet specific agendas. "In the current political climate is your research biased in favour of things to support climate change?" p.67
Moreover there was raised great concern about that their views will be used to support technologies even though they don‟t support them. With good reason as one of the recommendations drawn from this study was that "natural" technologies would be easier to "sell" to the broader public because of their natural features and as we could see earlier in the text, global SRM governance will avoid wider official participation.
It looks like we are on a journey to hell if we cannot embrace the truth just because cutting greenhouse gas emissions require some personal sacrifice for the common good and the preservation of our descendant's environmental birthright.
N.B. Concerning those who bought a ticket to "Heaven": they may encounter some difficulties as the part of the atmosphere (the ionosphere) that is called heaven by physicists, boils at the moment by using HAARP the most powerful ionosferic heater in the world (Atmospheric physics: Heating up the heavens21)
|RE: Chemtrails et al16-02-2011 04:10
|Can we please agree to refrain from posting pseudo-science such as chemtrails and HAARP?
|In which sense pseudo- Hayduke? (I think we can even talk Danish isn't it and I hope, just hope, you are not taking part in contra informative campaigns?)
Did you read the entire article or just the title and the end? As you may see the article is well documented scientifically and it was submitted in December to the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI) together with a commentary about unethical research. The article was accepted for revision.
|The case for spraying (just enough) chemicals into the sky to fight climate change
|My list of recommended renewable energy technologies