Christophoros
Forumgemeenschap => Praatcafé => Topic gestart door: Michel op maandag 20 augustus 2012 - 14:23:25
-
Neem wat tijd en bekijk best deze video... , of lees.
Ook bekend onder ´Chemtrails´ (google)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA&feature=related
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-engineering
Geo-engineering is het bewust ingrijpen in het functioneren van de aarde, tegenwoordig is hierbij veelal het doel klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Het betreft ingrijpende maatregelen die direct effect hebben op grootschalige systemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
Background
Several notable organizations have investigated geoengineering with a view to evaluating its potential, including, NASA,[25] the Royal Society,[26] the Institute of Mechanical Engineers,[27][28] and the UK Parliament,.[29] The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was convened to identify and develop risk reduction guidelines for climate intervention experimentation.[30]
The major environmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth[31] and Greenpeace[32] have typically been reluctant to endorse geoengineering. Some have argued that any public support for geoengineering may weaken the fragile political consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[33]
[edit] Proposed strategies
Several geoengineering strategies have been proposed. IPCC documents detail several notable proposals.[34] These fall into two main categories: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. However, other proposals exist.
See also: List of proposed geoengineering projects
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-Engineering
Der Begriff Geo-Engineering (oder Climate Engineering) bezeichnet vorsätzliche und großräumige Eingriffe mit technologischen Mitteln in geochemische oder biogeochemische Kreisläufe der Erde. Als Ziele derartiger Eingriffe werden hauptsächlich das Stoppen der Klimaerwärmung, der Abbau der CO2-Konzentration in der Atmosphäre oder die Verhinderung einer Versauerung der Meere genannt.
Een oud persbericht (toen nog door menige onwetende wereldvreemde afgedaan als samenzweringstheorie, zie reacties):
http://lvb.net/item/7687
(http://lvb.intersight.netdna-cdn.com/sites/lvb.net/files/media/1/20090727-chemtrails-vereecke.jpg)
Nu hoort men het regelmatig tijdens het weerbericht (ook op Duitse zenders):
"Dit heeft met weer niets te doen" vb ZDF in 2009 al :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xot1EI4s6j0
ZDF heute-journal 14.01.2009 Wetter - Chemtrails (dus een grootschalig experiment... in putje winter)
Het is dus gene zever hé.
Die National Academy of Sciences (NAS) erwähnte Geoengineering und mehrere Maßnahmen in ihrer Veröffentlichung zu den Implikationen der Globalen Erwärmung aus dem Jahr 1992.[5] Es sind sehr unterschiedliche Überlegungen, die im Begriff „Geo-Engineering“ zusammengefasst werden. Aufgrund ihres unterschiedlichen Lösungsansatzes werden diese Vorschläge in 2 Hauptgruppen unterteilt:[6]
1.Beeinflussung der Sonneneinstrahlung (Solar Radiation Management (SRM)):
Diese Techniken zielen darauf ab, die Abstrahlung von Sonnenlicht zu erhöhen um so einem globalen Temperaturanstieg entgegenzuwirken. Die Konzentration der Treibhausgase in der Atmosphäre und deren weitere Auswirkungen, wie eine mögliche Versauerung der Meere, kann mit SRM nicht direkt beeinflusst werden. Es wird vermutet, dass diese Methoden im Falle einer drohenden Klimakatastrophe relativ rasch einen kühlenden Effekt bringen würden. Insbesondere Aerosol-Ausbringungsmethoden bergen aber große Risiken in Hinblick auf unerwünschte Nebeneffekte (wie beispielsweise eine Schädigung der Ozonschicht oder negative Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit von Menschen, Tier- und Pflanzenwelt).[7]
2. Reduzierung der CO2-Konzentration in der Atmosphäre (Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)):
Da diese Methoden direkt an der vermuteten Ursache des Klimawandels (die steigenden CO2-Werte) ansetzen, werden ihre Unsicherheiten und Nebenwirkungen als eher gering eingeschätzt. Im Gegensatz zu SRM-Methoden dürfte es aber Jahre dauern, bis der gewünschte Effekt eintritt. Diese Gruppe umfasst direkte CO2-Beeinflussungsmethoden wie Luftfilterung, CO2-Sequestrierung (CCS), aber auch indirekte Methoden wie Düngung der Meere mit Eisen oder Phosphor.
Schwefeldioxid [Bearbeiten]
Ein prominenter Ansatz lautet, Schwefeldioxid in die Stratosphäre zu befördern, welches Sonnenstrahlen ins All reflektiert und damit die Erwärmung der Erde abschwächt. Die Idee basiert auf Erfahrungen mit Vulkanausbrüchen. So führte der Ausbruch des Pinatubo 1992 zu einem globalen Temperaturabfall von 0,5 °C. Der Ausbruch des Toba vor etwa 75.000 Jahren führte zu einem vulkanischen Winter, der mit geschätzten 3-5, anderen Modellrechnungen zufolge sogar 8-17 °C Abkühlung einherging.
Die Idee stammt ursprünglich von dem russischen Klimatologen Michail Budyko, der sie bereits in den 1970er Jahren veröffentlichte.[8] Der Atmosphärenwissenschaftler Ken Caldeira und die Physiker Lowell Wood und Nathan Myhrvold von der Firma Intellectual Ventures entwickelten den Ansatz, Schwefeldioxid mit Hilfe eines etwa 25 km langen und wenige Dezimeter durchmessenden Schlauchs in die Stratosphäre zu pumpen. Heliumballons würden den Schlauch und mehrere daran befestigte Pumpen tragen. Das am Ende des Schlauchs austretende farblose Flüssiggas würde sich durch Stratosphärenwinde innerhalb von etwa 10 Tagen um die Erde legen. Das Schwefeldioxid könnte als Abfallprodukt aus Ölminen in Kanada stammen. Die notwendige Menge an Schwefel entspricht laut den Entwicklern etwa 1 % der weltweiten Schwefelemissionen. Insgesamt würde die Neutralisierung der globalen Erwärmung 250 Millionen US$ kosten, was verglichen mit den von Nicholas Stern in Verbindung mit Emissionseinsparungen genannten Kosten von jährlich 1,2 Billionen Dollar extrem gering wäre. Zum Vergleich: die Al Gore Foundation gibt jedes Jahr 300 Millionen Dollar für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit aus. Eine auf dem gleichen physikalischen Mechanismus basierende Idee von Intellectual Ventures ist, die Schornsteine mehrerer schwefelemittierender Fabriken mit Hilfe von Heißluftballons und Luftschiffen in die Stratosphäre zu verlängern.[9][10][11]
Mehrere namhafte Wissenschaftler, so der Chemie-Nobelpreisträger Paul Crutzen und der Präsident der NAS Ralph Cicerone befürworten die ähnliche Überlegung, mit Schwefel beladene Heißluftballons in die Stratosphäre aufsteigen zu lassen, um sie dort zu verbrennen. Diese Methode würde laut Crutzen jährlich lediglich 25 bis 50 Milliarden US$ kosten, wird aber von einigen Wissenschaftlern aufgrund möglicher unvorhersehbarer Effekte und der Notwendigkeit eines dauerhaften Schwefeltransports kritisiert.[12]
Aluminium [Bearbeiten]
Im Zuge der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Conference 2010, San Diego am 20. Februar 2010, wurde vom kanadischen Geoingenieur David W. Keith (University of Calgary) vorgeschlagen, Aluminium anstatt Schwefeldioxid zu verwenden. Begründet wurde dieser Vorschlag mit 1) einem 4-fach größeren Strahlungsantrieb 2) einem ca. 16-fach geringeren Gerinnungsfaktor. Derselbe Albedoeffekt könnte so mit viel geringeren Mengen Aluminium, anstatt Schwefel, bewerkstelligt werden. [13]
Photophoretisch schwebende Nano-Scheiben (aus Aluminium und Bariumtitanat) [Bearbeiten]
Am 7. September 2010 veröffentlichte David W. Keith auf der Website von PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academies of Science), den Vorschlag aus Aluminium, Aluminiumoxid und Bariumtitanat bestehende Nanopartikel in der Stratosphäre auszubringen um Sonnenlicht zu reflektieren. [14]
Die 10 Mikrometer breiten und 50 Nanometer dicken Scheiben sollen in einer Höhe von 40 bis 50 km, knapp über der Stratosphäre, durch Nutzung des photophoretischen Effektes, dauerhaft schweben. Während die Bariumtitanat-Seite der Erde zugewandt sein soll, sollte die aus Aluminium/Aluminiumoxid bestehende Seite der Sonne zugewandt sein. Das auftreffende Sonnenlicht würde größtenteils reflektiert werden, was den Albedoeffekt erhöht und somit zur Kühlung der Erde beitragen könnte. (Der Effekt der Photophorese kann auch bei der Lichtmühle beobachtet werden, dessen Rad sich bei Lichteinfall dreht.)
Funktionsweise: Durch die Sonneneinstrahlung werden die Nanopartikel erwärmt. Da Bariumtitanat Wärme und Energie leichter abgibt als Aluminium, wäre der - durch den photophoretischen Effekt entstehende - Druck auf die Unterseite größer als die Richtung Erde wirkenden Kräfte. Dieser Drucküberschuss würde die Scheiben in einem Schwebezustand, idealerweise in der Mesosphäre, halten. Wird die Bariumtitanat-Schicht elektrisch aufgeladen, würde das natürliche elektrische Feld der Atmosphäre die Scheiben waagerecht halten und ein Kippen verhindern. Nachts würden die Partikel zwar (aufgrund der fehlenden Sonneneinstrahlung) langsam zur Erde sinken, aber tagsüber durch den beschriebenen Effekt wieder steigen.
Zusammensetzung der Nanopartikel:
Oberste Schicht bestehend aus Aluminiumoxid (schützt die mittlere Aluminiumschicht)
Mittlere Schicht aus Aluminium (reflektiert das Sonnenlicht)
Untere Schicht aus Bariumtitanat (für elektrische Aufladung und Photophorese)
Vorteile dieser Methode: Diese Methode des SRM (Solar Radiation Management) würde im Gegensatz zu den Schwefeldioxid-Modellen unerwünschte Effekte auf die Ozonschicht minimieren, da die Scheiben oberhalb dieser schweben würden.
Gesundheitliche Aspekte: Um negative gesundheitliche Auswirkungen zu minimieren (Aluminium und Bariumtitanat sind gesundheitsschädlich) sollten die Nanopartikel idealerweise so hergestellt werden, dass sie eine begrenzte Lebensdauer haben. Sie könnten beispielsweise so hergestellt werden, dass sie durch UV-Strahlung und Sauerstoffradikale zersetzt werden würden.
Enkele foto´s - uitvergrootbaar door aanklikken - van de techniek hier te vinden:
http://real-agenda.com/2012/03/20/chemtrails-beyond-geo-engineering-planetary-weather/
foto: http://educate-yourself.lege.net/cn/inside%20chemtrail%20plane1500w.jpg
via google (is geen Duvel hé ;))
(http://www.freedom-won.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Inside-Chemtrail-modified-jet.jpg)
-
Het is erg als mensen niet weten wat ze zien, en dan maar de waanzinnigste theorieën gaan verkondigen.
Wat op de foto staat is een standaard belastings- en ladingsverdelingstest bij nieuwe vliegtuigen of -modellen die dan nog niet gecertifieerd zijn voor passagiersvervoer.
In plaats van passagiers, gebruikt men dan water - dat reclameert niet en heeft geen nabestaanden.
-
Het is erg als mensen niet weten wat ze zien, en dan maar de waanzinnigste theorieën gaan verkondigen.
Wie?
Blijkbaar heb je dus helemaal niets gelezen.
De foto is maar een vb hoe het kan gaan, zoals in de link idd te lezen KAN het hier toevallig over wat anders gaan. maar is helemaal niet zeker.
-
Het is erg als mensen niet weten wat ze zien, en dan maar de waanzinnigste theorieën gaan verkondigen.
Wat op de foto staat is een standaard belastings- en ladingsverdelingstest bij nieuwe vliegtuigen of -modellen die dan nog niet gecertifieerd zijn voor passagiersvervoer.
In plaats van passagiers, gebruikt men dan water - dat reclameert niet en heeft geen nabestaanden.
Heb je het dan geproefd of gemeten ? ;)
In places like California and Hawaii, for example, independent researchers, scientists and people in general measured the amounts of heavy metals in their water and soil to reveal the massive poisoning the planet is being subject to through chemtrailing alone. Water and soil samples were submitted for evaluation and the amounts of heavy metals reached tens of thousands of times the normal amounts. All over the United States and Europe, people report the death of thousands of trees and other forms of plant and animal forms, which when analyzed have a common denominator: high concentrations of heavy metals and other chemicals. Surprisingly, most if not all of the areas with the largest number of deaths of animals and plants are far away from industrial centers, which helps reject the idea that their death is a direct result of industrial pollution or human activity. Most of these trees that are dying are located in forests or tropical paradises where the concentration of environmental pollutants is low. In order to confirm that these animals and plants were dying due to the chemicals sprayed over from the sky, analyses were also performed to see if the chemicals in the soil and water corresponded to those found in living animals or plants. Laboratory tests confirmed it.
Researcher Deborah Whitman, who performed her own analysis of dying plants and trees in the city of Solana Beach, California, found that the levels of aluminum were 387 milligrams per kilogram, barium was at 18.4, strontium at 113 and titanium at 15.2.
Along with the load of heavy metals and other chemicals that are sprayed daily by airplanes all over the world, researchers have independently found that other materials contained in the chemtrails are causing people to develop rashes and bruises on their skin. These materials include metallic salts or oxides, engineered biological products and fibers or filaments.The spraying of these materials has changed the the air humans and animals breathe. The air is no longer neutral, a quality that is necessary to support most forms of life. The fibers and filaments are invisible to the human eye, but are easily observed if people use “black lights”. That is how researchers and scientists became aware of their existence. They have called this particles “dry rain”. Scientific evidence shows that in order for the planet to have rainfall, particles of dust and other natural elements in the atmosphere form a nuclei which become unstable and then precipitate in the form of rain. But what happens when someone injects smaller than normal particles into the atmosphere? Those particles never become unstable, and with it they are capable of forming the haze looking man-made clouds that cover the sky after an airplane sprays the chemicals cited above. The smaller the particle, the more stable the water droplet, the lesser rainfall. That is what many call Geo-engineering.
Retired Wildlife Biologist and water specialist Francis Mangels found through laboratory analysis that the levels of Aluminum, Barium and Titanium seen as tolerable in water and soil had been surpassed exponentially. In places where aluminum levels had to be of 0.5 micrograms per liter, Mangels found that pond water had 12,000 micrograms per liter, 24,000 times the normal amounts. Snow drift at Mount Shasta showed levels even greater of 61,000 micrograms per liter, or 122, 200 times the normal level. In a separate analysis, pond water in Bellavista, California, had aluminum levels of 375,000 micrograms per liter. The level of barium reached 3090 micrograms per liter and strontium 345 micrograms per liter. Samples of water and soil taken from below houses presented normal levels of these and other metals.
Of wil je nu echt Geo-engineering ontkennen ? ???
http://www.climate-engineering.eu/
Ook militaire experimenten zijn er genoeg, daar zijn zelfs pdf´s van.
-
nog wat links... ook van IPCC... ik vraag me af waarom als ze toch maar puur water sproeien. ::)
See news release below from the ETC Group at the CBD negotiations in Nagoya and watch the press conference of ETC Group explaining the moratorium.
News Release
29 October 2010
www.etcgroup.org
"Geoengineering Moratorium at UN Ministerial in Japan
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked
NAGOYA, Japan – In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will close its tenth biennial meeting with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments. “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted UN consensus,” stated Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group.
The agreement, reached during the ministerial portion of the two-week meeting which included 110 environment ministers, asks governments to ensure that no geoengineering activities take place until risks to the environment and biodiversity and associated social, cultural and economic impacts have been appropriately considered. The CBD secretariat was also instructed to report back on various geoengineering proposals and potential intergovernmental regulatory measures.
The unusually strong consensus decision builds on the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization. That agreement, negotiated at COP 9 in Bonn, put the brakes on a litany of failed “experiments” – both public and private – to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide in the oceans’ depths by spreading nutrients on the sea surface. Since then, attention has turned to a range of futuristic proposals to block a percentage of solar radiation via large-scale interventions in the atmosphere, stratosphere and outer space that would alter global temperatures and precipitation patterns.
“This decision clearly places the governance of geoengineering in the United Nations where it belongs,” said ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney. “This decision is a victory for common sense, and for precaution. It will not inhibit legitimate scientific research. Decisions on geoengineering cannot be made by small groups of scientists from a small group of countries that establish self-serving ‘voluntary guidelines’ on climate hacking. What little credibility such efforts may have had in some policy circles in the global North has been shattered by this decision. The UK Royal Society and its partners should cancel their Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative and respect that the world’s governments have collectively decided that future deliberations on geoengineering should take place in the UN, where all countries have a seat at the table and where civil society can watch and influence what they are doing.
Link: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5227 werkt niet dan maar deze:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/climateintervention/hRsmOkr3LJI (https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/climateintervention/hRsmOkr3LJI)
enz...
....
"Opening of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16)
Cancun - Mexico, 29 November 2010
Statement delivered by Dr Rajendra Pachauri Chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"
" Work on IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is well in hand, and the scientific community has responded splendidly to the Panel’s request for its dedicated involvement. A record number of around 3000 nominations of outstanding scientists were submitted for the AR5, and from these a total of 831 have been selected by the IPCC as lead authors and review editors.
The scope of the AR5 has also been expanded over and above previous reports, and would include, for instance, focused treatment of subjects like clouds and aerosols, geo-engineering options, sustainability and equity issues, and much greater focus on the economics and social implications of climate change. The next four years will be marked by intense activity in the IPCC, with two important special reports on renewable energy and extreme events, respectively, due to come out within the next year. In September 2013, the Working Group 1 report as part of the AR5 would be completed, followed rapidly thereafter by the reports of Working Groups II and III respectively. The Synthesis Report of the AR5 will be completed in November 2014, marking the culmination of the AR5 cycle. "
Link: http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/COP16/StatementCancunDrPachauri.pdf
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.”
~World Meteorological Organization, 2007
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/world-geoengineering
(http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/styles/large/public/files/cartoons/worldofgeoengineering_fullsize.jpg)
The World of Geoengineering
ETC Group Maps Earth System Experimentation
ETC Group publishes a world map of geoengineering -- the large-scale manipulation of earth or climate systems. While there is no complete record of the scores of weather and climate control projects in dozens of countries, this map is the first attempt to document the expanding scope of research and experimentation. Almost 300 geoengineering projects/experiments are represented on the map belonging to 10 different types of climate-altering technologies.
DOWNLOAD MAP AS [ JPG ] [ PDF ]
In addition to the map, two tables of references are also available for download.
These provide information on the projects/ research/experimentation represented on the map. One table [GeoMap-References.pdf] gives information on geoengineering research and experimentation; a second table [GeoMap-WMinfo.pdf] provides details on weather modification projects.
Related Issues: Climate & Geoengineering.Related Fora: Regional: EU, Asia Pacific, Africa, Americas
Climate: UNFCCC, IPCC
Sustainable Development: Rio+20, CSD
Biodiversity: CBD, SBSTTA, IPBES.Upload:
worldofgeoengineering_fullsize.pdf
GeoMap-References.pdf
GeoMap-WMinfo.pdf
EN een vertaling:
... in Japan op 29 Oktober 2010 het volgende werd beslist:
Moratorium op Geo-engineering (uitstel van Klimaat-manipulatie) op de VN-ministerconferentie in Japan: Riskante technologische klimaatmanipulaties geblokkeerd.
Nagoya, Japan - In een historische consensus beslissen de 193-leden van het VN-Verdrag inzake Biologische Diversiteit (CBD) tijdens hun tiende tweejaarlijkse ontmoeting met een (de facto) moratorium op geo-engineering (klimaat-manipulatie) projecten en experimenten, dat "Elke publieke of private experimenten of avonturisme, manipuleren van de planetaire thermostaat in strijd zal zijn met deze zorgvuldig ontworpen VN-consensus", aldus Silvia Ribeiro, Latijns-Amerikaanse directeur van ETC Group.
De overeenkomst, bereikt tijdens het ministeriële gedeelte van de twee weken durende bijeenkomst van 110 milieuministers, vraagt de regeringen om ervoor te zorgen dat er geen geo-engineering activiteiten meer plaatsvinden met risico's voor het milieu, de biodiversiteit en de daarmee samenhangende sociale, culturele en economische effecten. Het VBD secretariaat werd ook opgedragen om verslag uit te brengen over de verschillende geo-engineering voorstellen en mogelijke intergouvernementele regulerende maatregelen.
De ongewoon sterke consensus/overeenkomst bouwt voort op een moratorium van 2008 ivm. oceaan fertilisatie. Deze overeenkomst, bereikt op COP 9 in Bonn, zet de rem op de litanie van mislukte "experimenten", zowel publieke als private, om de atmosferische kooldioxide te isoleren in de diepe oceanen door het verspreiden van voedingsstoffen op het zee-oppervlak. Sindsdien is de aandacht gericht op een reeks van futuristische voorstellen om een percentage van de zonnestraling via grootschalige ingrepen in de atmosfeer, de stratosfeer en de ruimte, die de verandering van de mondiale temperatuur en neerslagpatronen verhinderen.
"Deze beslissing plaatst duidelijk de maatregelen ivm. geo-engineering van de Verenigde Naties waar ze thuis horen," zei ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney. " Deze beslissing is een overwinning voor het gezond verstand, en men zal voorzichtiger moeten zijn. Het zal het rechtmatig wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet remmen. Besluiten ivm. geo-engineering kunnen niet worden gemaakt door kleine groepen van wetenschappers uit een kleine groep van landen die willekeurige richtlijnen opstellen om het klimaat te hacken (kraken,manipuleren). De weinige geloofwaardigheid die deze inspanningen kunnen gehad hebben binnen bepaalde politieke kringen in het Noorden werd aan dingelen geslagen door dit besluit. De Britse Royal Society en haar partners moeten hun initiatief ivm. het reguleren van zonnestraling (Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative) annuleren en respect hebben voor het besluit dat regeringen van alle landen gezamenlijk hebben besloten, nl. dat de toekomstige beraadslagingen ivm. geo-engineering zouden moeten plaatsvinden binnen de VN, waar alle landen een plaats hebben aan de tafel en waar de civiele samenleving kan kijken en invloed hebben op wat ze doen.
En de heren van het IPPC / COP16:
"Opening of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16)
Cancun - Mexico, 29 November 2010
Statement delivered by Dr Rajendra Pachauri Chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"
...
"Het werk aan het IPCC Vijfde Assessment Rapport (AR5) is goed op snelheid, en de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap heeft op uitermate goede wijze gereageerd op het verzoek van het Panel om haar toegewijde betrokkenheid waar te maken. Een record aantal van ongeveer 3000 voordrachten van prominente wetenschappers waren ingediend voor het AR5, en uit deze zijn een totaal van 831 zijn geselecteerd door het IPCC als belangrijkste auteurs en redacteurs.
Het toepassingsgebied van de AR5 is tevens uitgebreid bovenop de vorige verslagen, en zou bijvoorbeeld de speciale behandeling omvatten van onderwerpen als wolken en aërosolen, geo-engineering (opties van weermanipulatie), duurzaamheid en gelijke behandeling, en zich nog veel meer richten op de economie en sociale gevolgen van de klimaatverandering. De komende vier jaar zal worden gekenmerkt door een intense activiteit binnen de IPCC, met als belangrijkste onderdeel de twee belangrijke speciale verslagen over hernieuwbare energie en extreme gebeurtenissen, die reeds het volgende jaar zouden gepubliceerd worden. In september 2013 moet de werkgroep I een rapport als onderdeel van de AR5 afgeronden en nadien de verslagen van de werkgroepen II en III, respectievelijk. Het syntheseverslag van de AR5 zal worden afgerond in november 2014, een uitvloeisel van de AR5 cyclus. "
-
nog wat links... ook van IPCC... ik vraag me af waarom als ze toch maar puur water sproeien. ::)
De luchtvaart is zowat de strafst gecontroleerde tak van alle vervoer, en net daar zou dan niet gedocumenteerde apparatuur in de vliegertjes zitten ???
Iedereen op en rond de luchthaven , de luchtvaartauthoriteiten, de luchtvaartmaatschappijen, moeten er aan meewerken, want dat goedje moet binnengebracht worden, ingeladen worden - en staat vaneigenst niet op de weight sheet - eender wat gaat al eens kapot, is blijkbaar ook geen probleem; bij een volledig onderhoud over verkoop laat men dat dan telkens netjes zitten, ook al gaat het om niet gedocumenteerde apparatuur ;
Maar nu ge het zegt, ik denk dat zelfs JC hier aan meewerkt met zijn zwever ... :D
(http://soaringcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/07/Concordia-Dumping-Outboard-and-Inboard-Tanks-2-630x436.jpg)
-
Maar nu ge het zegt, ik denk dat zelfs JC hier aan meewerkt met zijn zwever ... :D
(http://soaringcafe.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2012/07/Concordia-Dumping-Outboard-and-Inboard-Tanks-2-630x436.jpg)
Laat maar zitten.
Sorry, en slaap rustig verder.
Of lees eens wat...
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1605&page=433
-
Deze foto van Jeff Wels toont goed wat er normaal zoal van een vleugel af komt - maar je niet altijd allemaal ziet omdat de omstandigheden niet altijd goed zijn daarvoor.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/522911806_0e25c7662c.jpg)
Dat is dus wel wat meer dan enkel de condens van de motoren.
-
Deze foto van Jeff Wels toont goed wat er normaal zoal van een vleugel af komt - maar je niet altijd allemaal ziet omdat de omstandigheden niet altijd goed zijn daarvoor.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/223/522911806_0e25c7662c.jpg)
Dat is dus wel wat meer dan enkel de condens van de motoren.
Ja en ? (denk je dat ik dat niet weet)
Heb je liever meer links meer figuren, meer afbeeldingen, meer vbn als Chemicals to save ozon ofzo ?
(http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/various20geo-engineering20schemes.jpg)
Scientists Decide to Consider Considering Geo-engineering
Jeremy Elton Jacquot
Technology / Clean Technology
November 12, 2007
Image courtesy of B. Matthews
In a worrying sign that scientists may be slowly succumbing to the siren song of geo-engineering, a panel of top climate researchers cautiously endorsed a proposal to fund more research looking into unorthodox ways to stop global warming. While no formal statement was released, Phil Rasch, a modeler with Boulder's University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and a member of the panel, spoke for the great majority of his colleagues when he stated: "We're not saying that there should be geoengineering, we're saying there should be research regarding geoengineering."
Even once vehement opponents of such schemes - the best-known of which would consist of pumping aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic a volcano's cooling effect - said that they were slowly warming to the idea. In light of the gravity of current conditions, Daniel Schrag of Harvard University and David Keith of the University of Calgary argued that the controversial field deserved further scrutiny. Claiming that countries would inevitably turn to such strategies once conditions depreciated enough, Schrag suggested that more research now would prevent the most drastic potential consequences from occurring. "We're going to be doing this if we're afraid of something really bad happening, like the Greenland ice sheet collapsing," he explained.
Raymond Pierrehumberg, a contributor to RealClimate, called for a 10-year moratorium on any geo-engineering plan, cautioning his colleagues that further research should only serve as a supplement to efforts aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions. Let's hope cooler heads prevail.
Via ::ScienceNOW: Giving Climate Change a Kick (news website)
See also: ::Sounds Risky to Us: Simulating a Volcanic Eruption to Counter Global Warming, ::The Economist Discovers Geo-engineering, ::Wild and Crazy Ideas to Cool the Planet
Tags: Geoengineering
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/scientists-decide-to-consider-considering-geo-engineering.html#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1345498803280&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.treehugger.com
Als de site je niet bevalt neem deze (~ dezelfde afbeelding)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527155519.htm
(http://images.sciencedaily.com/2008/05/080527155519-large.jpg)
A schematic representation of various geoengineering and carbon storage proposals. (Credit: Diagram by Kathleen Smith/LLNL = Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Science News... from universities, journals, and other research organizations
Geoengineering Could Slow Down Global Water Cycle
ScienceDaily (May 27, 2008) — As fossil fuel emissions continue to climb, reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth would definitely have a cooling effect on surface temperatures.
However, a new study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, led by atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, shows that this intentional manipulation of solar radiation also could lead to a less intense global water cycle. Decreasing surface temperatures through "geoengineering" also could mean less rainfall.
The reduction in sunlight can be accomplished by geoengineering schemes. There are two classes: the so-called "sunshade" geoengineering scheme, which would mitigate climate change by intentionally manipulating the solar radiation on the earth's surface; the other category removes atmospheric CO2 and sequesters it into the terrestrial vegetation, oceans or deep geologic formations.
In the new climate modeling study, which appears in the May 27-30 early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bala and his colleagues Karl Taylor and Philip Duffy demonstrate that the sunshade geoengineering scheme could slow down the global water cycle.
The sunshade schemes include placing reflectors in space, injecting sulfate or other reflective particles into the stratosphere, or enhancing the reflectivity of clouds by injecting cloud condensation nuclei in the troposphere. When CO2 is doubled as predicted in the future, a 2 percent reduction in sunlight is sufficient to counter the surface warming.
This new research investigated the sensitivity of the global mean precipitation to greenhouse and solar forcings separately to help understand the global water cycle in a geoengineered world.
While the surface temperature response is the same for CO2 and solar forcings, the rainfall response can be very different.
"We found that while climate sensitivity can be the same for different forcing mechanisms, the hydrological sensitivity is very different," Bala said.
The global mean rainfall increased approximately 4 percent for a doubling of CO2 and decreases by 6 percent for a reduction in sunlight in his modeling study.
"Because the global water cycle is more sensitive to changes in solar radiation than to increases in CO2, geoengineering could lead to a decline in the intensity of the global water cycle" Bala said.
A recent study showed that there was a substantial decrease in rainfall over land and a record decrease in runoff and discharge into the ocean following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The ash emitted from Pinatubo masked some of the sunlight reaching the earth and therefore decreased surface temperatures slightly, but it also slowed down the global hydrologic cycle.
"Any research in geoengineering should explore the response of different components of the climate system to forcing mechanisms," Bala said.
For instance, Bala said, sunshade geoengineering would not limit the amount of CO2 emissions. CO2 effects on ocean chemistry, specifically, could have harmful consequences for marine biota because of ocean acidification, which is not mitigated by geoengineering schemes.
"While geoengineering schemes would mitigate the surface warming, we still have to face the consequences of CO2 emissions on marine life, agriculture and the water cycle," Bala said.
Chemicals to save ozone wtf ... ???
-
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mother-of-god-meme.jpg)
Contrails bestaan - sporen van condensatie. Maar als je over chemtrails begint heb je een rijke fantasie.
-
Het zal er wel wat mee te maken hebben dat dit beginnen opvallen is na 11 september 2001 ...
3 dagen niet vliegen boven de VS had toen een effect op de dagelijkse temperatuurvariatie daar.
Echt verwonderlijk is dat niet als je het enorme aantal vluchten daar in het achterhoofd houdt.
-
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/mother-of-god-meme.jpg)
Contrails bestaan - sporen van condensatie. Maar als je over chemtrails begint heb je een rijke fantasie.
???
Natuurlijk bestaan contrails en stop dan je chrono hoelang die kunnen blijven hangen, dan kijk een naar een klok hoelang verdachte "contrails" blijven hangen...
Sinds wanneer wordt Bijbel Wikipedia genegeerd: ?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-Engineering
Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.
Chemtrails foei voor het woord :D is niet officieel maar noem het gewoon geo-engineering of climate engineering door hulp van bepaalde chemische stoffen in bepaalde zeer kleine hoeveelheden.
Dus helemaal niet. De feiten zijn er. ;D
http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/projekte/forschung/sondierungsstudie-climate-engineering/view?set_language=de (Duits of Engels)
http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/projekte/forschung/gesamtstudie
1.1 Gezielte Eingriffe in das Klimasystem: Climate Engineering
Unter dem Begriff Climate Engineering (CE) werden Maßnahmen zusammengefasst, die explizit dazu angewandt werden, die atmosphärische CO2-Konzentration zu senken oder die Strahlungsbilanz der Erde direkt zu beeinflussen, um so den anthropogenen Klimawandel abzuschwächen bzw. zu kompensieren. In Abgrenzung zum ebenfalls genutzten Begriff des Geoengineering
hebt die Bezeichnung Climate Engineering hervor, dass es um die gezielte Beeinflussung des Klimasystems und nicht etwa um andere Eingriffe in die Umwelt wie die Modifikation von Küsten oder das Umleiten von Flüssen geht. Dabei ist aber zu betonen, dass der Teilbegriff Engineering nicht die ingenieurstechnische Kontrolle des Klimas suggerieren soll, sondern verdeutlicht,
dass diese Eingriffe gezielt vorgenommen werden, um das Klima zu beeinflussenbzw. den Klimawandel zu begrenzen. Climate Engineering erfasst also mehr als bloße Nebeneffekte anderer anthropogener Handlungen wie die Emission von Treibhausgasen.
Climate Engineering grenzt sich von anderen Ansätzen zur Begrenzung des anthropogenen Klimawandels ab, indem Maßnahmen ergriffen werden, die ansetzen, nachdem die Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe und die Freisetzung der entsprechenden Emissionen in die Atmosphäre stattgefunden haben, aber bevor es zu einer Anpassung hinsichtlich der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels gekommen ist. Entsprechend stellt die industrielle CO2- Abtrennung und -Speicherung (CCS) keine Maßnahme des Climate Engineering dar (Keith 2000).
Climate Engineering umfasst dagegen einerseits Maßnahmen zur ursächlichen Rückführung des Strahlungsantriebs, indem die atmosphärische CO2-Konzentration gesenkt wird, und andererseits Maßnahmen zur symptomatischen Kompensation des Strahlungsantriebs,
indem die Strahlungsbilanz direkt beeinflusst wird. Die ersten werden als Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) und die zweiten als Radiation Management (RM) Maßnahmen bezeichnet. Abbildung 1 illustriert einige der derzeit diskutierten Technologien.
Bei den CDR-Maßnahmen wird bei Nutzung biologischer, chemischer oder physikalischer Prozesse atmosphärisches CO2 durch den Ozean oder die terrestrische Biosphäre aufgenommen bzw. direkt geologisch gespeichert. Die ozeanische CO2-Aufnahme kann zum Beispiel durch Eisendüngung, künstlichen Auftrieb oder Alkalinitätseintrag erhöht werden.
Die terrestrische CO2-Aufnahme kann etwa durch Aufforstung oder die Herstellung von Biokohle erhöht werden. Allerdings lässt sich CO2 auch direkt chemisch aus der Luft filtern, um es in geologischen Formationen an Land oder unterhalb des Meeres zu speichern. Grundsätzlich ließe sich aus der Atmosphäre gefiltertes CO2 auch direkt in den Ozean einleiten, allerdings ist dies seit 2006 durch das London Protocol verboten und soll daher hier nicht weiter verfolgt werden.
Bei den RM-Technologien wird entweder die kurzwellige Sonneneinstrahlung oder die langwellige thermische Abstrahlung direkt beeinflusst. Die kurzwellige Sonneneinstrahlung lässt sich zum einen durch Reflektoren im Weltall reduzieren; zum anderen kann durch Aerosole in der Stratosphäre, durch künstliche marine Schichtwolkenbildung oder durch Modifikationen an der Erdoberfläche deren Rückstrahlung (Albedo) erhöht werden. Die langwellige thermische Abstrahlung lässt sich unter Umständen durch Beeinflussung von Zirruswolken erhöhen.
Chemtrails - Foei :D -Symposium in Gent in 2010 Belfort Group:
CLICK LINK Dr Coen Vermeeren Symposium speech,
Afternoon Part 1 video, (starting at about 35 mins.) (29 May 2010) http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
uit vele bronnen, neem deze : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.
“In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007
Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.
Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]
Case Orange notes it was prepared for the Belfort Group by a team of scientists but presented anonymously. It was sent to embassies, news organizations and interested groups around the world “to force public debate.”
The report spends some time on HAARP, the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, [6] which is a military endeavor focused on ionospheric, electromagnetic, and global electrostatic field manipulation, and on other exotic weapon systems that manipulate the environment. While related, they go beyond this discussion of chemtrails.
In the interest of brevity, the health and environmental implications of cloud seeding is not discussed in any depth herein. Case Orange does go into it, as did most of the speakers at the Belfort Symposium. Cursory research reveals a debate among researchers as to chemtrail toxicity, but whether that’s a 50-50 or 99-1 argument is unknown.
Contrails Are Chemtrails
Case Orange rejects use of the term ‘chemtrails’ because it is associated with amateur conspiracy theorists. The only credible document it could find that uses it is the Space Preservation Act of 2001 introduced by U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). [7] H.R. 2977 sought to ban the use of exotic weapon systems that would damage climate, weather, tectonic and biological systems. “Chemtrails” are specifically listed. Though later removed, no version of the bill ever became law.
Instead, the writers prefer the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon since all contrails are chemtrails. ‘Persistent contrails’ distinguishes those that contain weather-altering additives from those that represent normal aircraft exhaust that dissipates after a few seconds or minutes.
Case Orange also rejects misanthropic intentions behind persistent contrails. It shows that geoengineering is fully operational, but rejects it is used to sicken people on the assumptions that 1) public health agencies have the public interest at heart; and 2) the economy is consumer driven. The authors indicate no awareness of numerous reports of collusion between the pharmaceutical industry and government health agencies. This year, a significant conflict-of-interest report appeared in the prestigious British Medical Journal, which further heightened suspicions that the H1N1 flu and its vaccines were a scam.[8] Nor do the authors consider that sick people will spur economic growth in a capitalist (for profit) health system.
Dr. Vermeeren gave his own introductory remarks and conclusions, but spent the bulk of the hour presenting information from Case Orange. He frankly admitted the existence of persistent contrails.
“We also know that chemtrails do exist because we do spraying; for crops, for example, and we know that they have been spraying for military purposes. So, chemtrails is nothing new. We know about it.”
En vooral niet op de inhoud ingaan, dat ken ik. ;D
-
Michel, het kan, maar het is niet dat alle lijnvluchten ons zitten te cropdusten sinds het begin van lijnvluchten met vliegtuigen met cabines onder druk op grote hoogte.
Contrails zijn contrails, en ook ik denk dat bij jou de hitte van de laatste dagen heeft toegeslagen...
-
Michel, het kan, maar het is niet dat alle lijnvluchten ons zitten te cropdusten sinds het begin van lijnvluchten met vliegtuigen met cabines onder druk op grote hoogte.
Waar schreef ik dat ?
Contrails zijn contrails, en ook ik denk dat bij jou de hitte van de laatste dagen heeft toegeslagen...
en Chemtrails zijn chemtrails ik denk dat jouw kastje bovenaan dicht staat...
Deze contrails: http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/forschak/1425897/ zijn het dus NIET
Weeral niet inhoudelijk ingaan op de talrijke links, je hebt tenminste de titel toch gelezen ?
Geoengineering op grote schaal/andere middelen, waar zijn ze mee bezig ?
Waarom wil de IPCC/UN/... iets "verbieden" - het bewezen misbruiken van geo-engineering - of controleren, als het niet bestaat ?
zoiets is in de brood en spelen media niet te vinden hé. LUISTER en kijk (Duits), enkele doc/link uit de video heb ik al geciteerd in post 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nTGrYlt1zc&feature=related
UN verbietet Chemtrails. Zwar kann man die Sinnhaftigkeit von Un-Resolutionen anzweifeln, doch ist erstmals offiziell, das es sowas gibt- außerdem ist Bill Gates ein Chemtrail Produzent
Je begrijpt toch Duits ? De UNO verbiedt Chemtrails, het is de eerste keer officieel toegegeven dat zoiets bestaat
Luister naar enkele geo-engineers die ´climate change´ denken te kunnen...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RsrRpjAGi8&feature=related
Heb je al een antwoord klaar ? ;)
Heb je ook een antwoord op dit filmpje van een militaire KC 10, contrails zeg je ? :o :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSWnXQsgOU&feature=related enkele seconden kijken is al genoeg, ge kunt ook de commentaar van de piloot en copiloot volgen op de spray off en dan weer spray volle bak weer aan. (sproeien ze op zeer hoge wolken of is het willekeur ? geen idee... whatever)
En het is zeker geen fuel dumping, ik kan het weten ;).
idem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syvQkviPdDE&feature=related
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LecpxQwqMrY/TEcIAqbYW2I/AAAAAAAAKlw/bgqbm_ck2l4/s400/kc-10+3.jpg)
http://www.tankerenemy.com/2010/07/troppo-tardi-tim-il-caso-del-kc-10-nei.html
site met details (Italiaans, laat zich vertalen)
opgenomen uit een vliegtuig ´in de wachtrij´ met een Canon Powershot SX200.
Bevestiging dat "geoengineering" (ik noem het chemtrails-experimenten) kan (have been proposed) gebeuren met een KC 10:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)#Delivery_methods
Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)
The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid[3], hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5]
Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[2] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.
Aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary flight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling and have greater payload.[4]
-
en Chemtrails zijn chemtrails
Waarom wil de IPCC/UN/... iets "verbieden" - het bewezen misbruiken van geo-engineering - of controleren, als het niet bestaat ?
Hier beter ´uitgelegd´ voor de verwarde kastjes van "het foei-woord chemtrails" ;) : staat op # 9e plaats van het meest gecensureerde woorden 8)
Rady | October 31, 2010 at 4:59 pm | Reply
“Chemtrails” is the popular term, not the scientific term. Read the excerpts from the Agreement in the article above* (and note my previous comment where I quoted the relevant portion). Reasonable minds concur this moratorium covers chemtrails.
You won’t find any death certificates that list “heart attack” as the cause of death, either — not because nobody dies from “heart attacks”, but because doctors use the medical term for it (myocardial infarction).
* bron:
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/un-votes-to-ban-chemtrails/
BREAKING: UN Bans Chemtrails
Posted on October 28, 2010
Geoengineering Moratorium Agreed at UN Ministerial in Japan
By ETC Group
Risky Climate Techno-fixes Blocked
...
The full texts of the relevant decisions on geoengineering are copied below:
Under Climate Change and Biodiversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.36)
8. Invites Parties and other Governments, according to national circumstance and priorities, as well as relevant organizations and processes, to consider the guidance below on ways to conserve, sustainably use and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services while contributing to climate‑change mitigation and adaptation:
….
(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities[1] that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;
[1] Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. Noting that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere.
[...]
# Sept. 29, 2011 Update: Chemtrail article in Project Censored’s Top 10 most censored stories
Dec. 6, 2010 UPDATE: UN Climate Concern Morphs into Chemtrail Glee Club
Washington Post 10/29: “The prohibition does not apply to the United States, which has yet to ratify the convention.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906365.html?hpid=topnews
Geoengineering sparks international ban, first-ever congressional report
# Chemtrail article in Project Censored’s Top 10 most censored stories
Posted on September 29, 2011 by Rady | 22 Comments
By Rady Ananda
For the past 35 years, Project Censored has published an annual collection of the top 25 censored news stories. In the 2012 book edition, just released this September, my article, Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, ranks as the 9th most censored story in the United States.
Originally published at the Centre for Research on Globalization in July 2010, an updated version at COTO Report has seen over 15,000 page views as of this writing. The article is widely posted across the world in several English and non-English speaking countries, giving it far broader readership than we’ll ever know, but likely over a million.
In addition to citing the symposium speech on which I based my article (supported by three dozen other sources), the Project also included a Commonwealth Club podcast “Man-Made Climate Change in the Skies,” in the new book. That audio-only podcast is a panel discussion by a scientist, two college professors and a former California agriculture employee who has been documenting adverse impacts on agriculture from cloud seeding operations, Rosalind Peterson.
Peterson runs the websites, Agriculture Defense Coalition and California SkyWatch. Her 2009 article, “Persistant Jet Contrails & Man-made Clouds Change our Climate Harming Agriculture & our Natural Resources” is also published in the new book. Also see this 68-minute interview by InfoWars.com.
Ironically, and as if to prove Project Censored’s point, after I posted a link last year to the Atmospheric Geoengineering piece on the “progressive” link site, buzzflash.com, I was banned, and all my contributions removed, though my links often made their front page.
Not surprisingly, even today, Atmospheric Geoengineering continues to be marginalized. A recent hit piece by Rebecca Bowe described “several claims in this year’s list” as “stretching things a bit.” She disparaged my article and Project Censored for having “a fringe obsession with supposedly suspicious airplane contrails.”
Unbeholden to the corporate line, independent media has a different view of my work. Activist Post recently gave me an honorable mention in its Ten Most Influential People in Alternative Media.
“The reporter mischaracterized your story,” said Professor Mickey Huff, the director of the Project. “We have told her and her publisher about it.”
No doubt, chemtrail deniers are more numerous than those who believe the official version of what happened on 9/11. Yet, publicly available evidence confirming existence of this decades-long project renders such denial absurd. The evidence is overwhelming. This is likely why the subject made it onto Project Censored’s Top Ten.
The Project has also been censored for reporting on 9/11 truth, as this KPFA interview from last year reveals. Inter Press Service contracted with Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff to write the piece, and then refused to publish it and permanently severed their relationship. Huff says the footnotes went on for two pages, though the piece was only a page and a half long. 9/11 Truth is covered in Project Censored’s 2011 edition.
A history professor at Diablo Valley College in Contra Costa County, California, Mickey Huff explains that the selection process for censored stories begins with public nominations.
A committee of college students from over 30 colleges around the world then reviews them for media coverage using a variety of databases including Lexis Nexis. If a story is under-represented, the students then fact check the article and consult with experts. After stories have been validated, a team of judges ranks their favorites and the results are calculated.
In addition to the top 25 censored stories for the year (April 2010 through March 2011), the book covers several more topics related to media censorship and democracy. Here’s the Top Ten 2012 countdown:
#10 Statistical Games with the Unemployment Rate. At Information Clearing House, Greg Hunter showed that instead of 9%, the real unemployment rate is over 22%.
#9 Chemtrails. Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, Rady Ananda, July 10, 2010.
...
#1 US Soldier Suicides Exceed Combat Deaths in 2010. Cord Jefferson broke the story on Jan. 27, 2011 at Iceland’s Good Magazine.
...
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/chemtrail-article-in-project-censored%E2%80%99s-top-10-most-censored-stories/
:D
-
vervolg... nu de vraag hoe bij commerciele vliegtuigen ?
Een ZDF reportage van 2008 (dus mainstream) geeft een aanwijzing méér zwaveldioxide (SO2) in de kerosine geeft al veel langere of "persistentere contrails" en zou vanaf grote hoogte toch voldoende onschadelijk zijn en opgelost zijn voor dat het de aarde bereikt... (SO2 doet men ook in wijn als antioxidatie dacht ik...)...
dus zwaveldioxide tegen global warming (zoals bij vulkaanstof)... maar wat dan met het ozongat ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbKH_ZAh9oI&feature=related
07.11.2008
ZDF - Chemtrails gegen Erderwärmung
TV Sender ZDF - Dokumentation über Chemtrails gegen Erderwärmung. Forscher wollen Global einen Schutzschild in der Atmosphäre errichten. Ist schon Schwefel im Kerosin?
Wenn das entstehende Gas Schwefeldioxid auf die Erdoberfläche zurückfällt könnte es für eine böse Überraschung sorgen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xot1EI4s6j0&feature=related
Wolkenslierten van 300 km door militaire vliegtuigen ?
Vraag dan:
is al die kersosine van tegenwoordig nog wel de kerosine van pakweg **20 jaar geleden ?, stel dezefde vraag bij andere brandstoffen als diesel en benzine en je vermoed ... wat goed is voor het (mom) milieu (ozon afbouwen in de onderste stratosfeer ??? ) is mss ook goed voor de mensen ? :-\
Sinds men het ozonafbouw boven de polen wil terugbrengen of stoppen heeft men zeker ook maatregelen genomen qua samenstelling van kerosine. Meer SO2 bouwt immers Ozon af: (oud doc van 1998) oei wat nu ? Pest of Cholera ?
DOC_DE\DV\347\347031 29.05.1998
Ende der 80er Jahre rückte die Diskussion über die Ursachen des Treibhauseffekts, die Zerstörung der Ozonschicht und die drohende Klimakatastrophe in den Blickpunkt der Öffentlichkeit. Dabei galt als wissenschaftlicher Sachstand schon zu diesem Zeitpunkt, daß der Treibhauseffekt durch den vom Menschen hervorgerufenen Anstieg der Konzentrationen der langlebigen Treibhausgase Kohlendioxid, Methan, Distickstoffoxid und Fluorchlorkohlenwasserstoffe (FCKW) verursacht wird.2 Im Rahmen dieser Untersuchungen wie der Enquete-Kommission CSchutz der Erdatmosphäre" des Deutschen Bundestages (1990) wurde dem Flugverkehr keine besondere Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Erst durch neue Studien Anfang der **90er Jahre erkannten Wissenschaftler und Umweltpolitiker, daß der Einfluß von Flugzeugabgasen auf die Verschmutzung der Atmosphäre keine quantité négligeable" darstellt.
...
2.1.5. Schwefeldioxid (SO2)
Der Flugtreibstoff Kerosin enthält in der Regel Schwefel, der durch die Verbrennung in Form von Schwefeldioxid freigesetzt wird. Für die Wirkung der emittierten Stoffe ist neben der Menge auch die Höhe entscheidend, in der die Emission erfolgt. In der Reiseflughöhe ist die Wirkung wegen der auf langsamem Abbau der Emissionen beruhenden großen Verweilzeit, geringer Hintergrund-Konzentration und starker Strahlungswirksamkeit deutlich höher als in Bodennähe. In den besonders sensiblen Polarbereichen (vgl. Abb. 2) liegt die Flughöhe im Bereich des Ozonabbaugebietes. Die emittierten SO2-Mengen sind groß genug, um eine deutliche Erhöhung der Sulfat-Aerosol-Konzentration in der unteren Stratosphäre zu bewirken und damit zum Ozonabbau beizutragen. Während winterlicher Smogphasen kann Schwefeldioxid in Bodennähe außerdem zu Belastungen der Atemwege führen.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/envi/pdf/brief2de_de.pdf
-
Zo langzaam sijpelt het meer en meer door op de Nederlandstalige media:
(in Be zijn ze nog te schuchter ;D ´vakblad´ Humo ontkende een tijdje geleden :D )
http://www.earth-matters.nl/51/1036/chemtrails/chemtrails-toegegeven.html
In Duitsland heeft men het al ´bescheiden´ aan het publiek verkondigd, via Internet ( vb Kopp Nachrichten online):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogp44qKfGts
Duitse regering informeert bevolking over chemtrails
15.11.2011
De Duitse regering informeert haar bevolking sinds vorige maand op internet over chemtrails. Dat meldt het Duitse Kopp Online. Waarnemers vermoeden dat geo-engineering, het bewust ingrijpen in het functioneren van de Aarde, al tenminste 20 jaar lang wordt toegepast. Geo-engineering wordt op de website van het Duitse ministerie van Onderwijs en Onderzoek (BMBF) verkocht als een onschuldige methode om klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Met behulp van geo-engineering wil het ministerie straling van de Zon tegenhouden en CO2 in de atmosfeer reduceren als gevolg waarvan de Aarde minder snel zou opwarmen en het broeikaseffect zou verminderen. Op haar website erkent het ministerie dat de maatregelen niet zonder risico zijn en dat sommige vragen vooralsnog onbeantwoord blijven. Ook wordt duidelijk dat chemtrails slechts een klein onderdeel zijn van de ingrijpende maatregelen die effect hebben op grootschalige systemen op Aarde. Wetenschappers zijn bezorgd dat de chemicaliën die wereldwijd worden verspreid kunnen leiden tot serieuze aandoeningen.
De film vd topicstarter met Nederlandse ondertitels:
(!!! Chemtrails - NL ondertitel/subs) What In The World Are They Spraying? - Full Length
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVK1gwjUhE&feature=player_embedded
Toch voor de geïnteresseerden die er voor open staan (vroeg of laat zal het toch "officieel nieuws" worden, natuurlijk in geminimaliseerde vorm " experimenten op kleine schaal ofzo, zodat de mensen ´rustig slapen´))
Kijk bvb vanaf 5´ tot 8 ´, Aluminiumpartikels zou vier keer meer reflecteren en 16 maal langer aanhouden als meer Zwavel (SO2) in de kerosine.
´Ze willen ons laten geloven dat het maar SO2 is maar uit de metingen van het oppervlaktewater en op andere plaatsen (juist meten is weten !) is er duidelijk veel meer aluminium gevonden, naast andere stoffen... (bekijk de film)
Dus dat * UN-Moratorium in 2010 kwam niets te vroeg, maar ik denk dat hier nog meer op zal volgen zodat al die grootschalige experimenten (droge gebieden boven USA) voor climate change (voor plaatselijk profijt) echt in zeer beperkte wetenschappelijke bereiken komt.
*
De tiende tweejaarlijkse VN-top over het Biodiversiteitsverdrag (CBD) is afgesloten met een belangrijke beslissing: de 193 lidstaten spraken af dat alle geo-engineering projecten en experimenten worden opgeschort. “Elk privaat of publiek experiment wat erop gericht is om de thermostaat van de planeet te manipuleren is in strijd met dit zorgvuldig opgestelde akkoord,” zei Silvia Riberio, Latijns-Amerikaans directrice van de ETC Group.
Het akkoord werd bereikt tijdens de twee weken durende ontmoeting tussen onder andere 110 ministers van VROM en verplicht overheden ervoor te zorgen dat in de desbetreffende landen geen enkele activiteiten op het gebied van geo-engineering meer plaatsvinden.
De overeenstemming borduurt voort op het verbod uit 2008 op het uitoefenen van geo-engineering activiteiten in de oceanen. Het akkoord maakte abrupt een eind aan een veelzijdigheid aan mislukte experimenten, zowel privaat als publiek, om koolstofdioxide uit de atmosfeer op te slaan in de oceanen door voedingsstoffen over het wateroppervlak te verspreiden.
Sinds die tijd is de aandacht gericht op het blokkeren van een percentage van de zonnestraling (Solar Radiation Management) door middel van grootschalige interventies in de atmosfeer, stratosfeer en in de ruimte waardoor de temperatuur en neerslagpatronen wereldwijd zouden veranderen. ( :-\ zie onderaan)
De delegaties in Nagoya, Japan begrijpen nu de potentiële risico’s van het testen of toepassen van geo-engineering technologieën. Na vele lange nachten kwamen de aanwezigen tot een overeenstemming en aanstaande vrijdag wordt het besluit voorgelegd aan de voltallige commissie. De voorzitter van de onderhandelingen over het klimaat en biodiversiteit noemde de eindversie van het besluit een ‘zeer gevoelig compromis’.
“Deze beslissing is een overwinning voor het gezonde verstand en is genomen als voorzorgsmaatregel,” zei ETC Group directeur Pat Mooney. Beslissingen aangaande geo-engineering kunnen niet worden gemaakt door kleine groepen wetenschappers uit een kleine groep landen die vervolgens zelf richtlijnen opstellen voor het knoeien met de Aarde. De wereld heeft nu collectief besloten dat toekomstige overwegingen met betrekking tot geo-engineering worden genomen binnen de Verenigde Naties, waar alle landen een zetel hebben.
Belangrijkste uitkomsten zijn dat geen enkele klimaat-gerelateerde of geo-engineering activiteit de biodiversiteit op Aarde mag beïnvloeden, totdat in kaart gebracht is wat de mogelijke gevolgen zijn. Elke vorm van technologie die nadrukkelijk zonnestralen blokkeert of die op grote schaal beslag legt op de koolstofdioxide in de atmosfeer en zo de biodiversiteit mogelijk beïnvloedt zou moeten worden gezien als een vorm van geo-engineering en is derhalve relevant voor het Biodiversiteitsverdrag. Dit betekent dat al deze activiteiten bij wet verboden worden.
In het rapport van de ETC Group worden alle geo-engineering technieken op een rijtje gezet en belicht. Naast de genoemde methoden komen de volgende aspecten aan bod: het beïnvloeden van het weer op welke manier dan ook (HAARP), kunstmatige vulkanen die reflecterende deeltjes in de atmosfeer brengen, cloud whitening en cloud seeding (chemtrails) en de connectie met het militaire industrie complex (MIC).
Bronnen: ETCGroup / Foodfreedom.wordpress.com /
Reuters.com http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFTOE69K02U20101021 (http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFTOE69K02U20101021)
Vooral in NATO-landen gebeurt ttz -gebeurde- het (bekijk daarvoor best de film volledig, dat doet echt geen pijn ;))...
De ZDF-weerman de 14.01.2009 had het dus bij het rechte eind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xot1EI4s6j0
:-\ : http://www.srmgi.org/
Info + Video ivm "The Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative (SRMGI)"
-
een jaar of 10 geleden kreeg ik op mijn radar na de passage van een vliegtuig plots 'rare' lijnen
wij hebben de kustwacht hierover opgeroepen en die gingen het onderzoeken
ook werd het voorval genoteerd in ons logboek (militair schip)
bij onze thuiskomst kregen we de 'vraag' van de engelse marine om onze vaststellingen te schrappen uit ons logboek
nooit vernomen wat het was, maar het zal wel iets 'geheim' geweest zijn
-
een jaar of 10 geleden kreeg ik op mijn radar na de passage van een vliegtuig plots 'rare' lijnen
wij hebben de kustwacht hierover opgeroepen en die gingen het onderzoeken
ook werd het voorval genoteerd in ons logboek (militair schip)
bij onze thuiskomst kregen we de 'vraag' van de engelse marine om onze vaststellingen te schrappen uit ons logboek
nooit vernomen wat het was, maar het zal wel iets 'geheim' geweest zijn
Vele reflecterende partikels geven natuurlijk navenante primaire clutter-echo´s in de sleep van het vliegtuig-echo of -blip.
Vraagje: weet je nog of dat vliegtuig met transponder-aan vloog, dus met IFF-informatie van vooral hoogte enzoverder ?
-
Vraagje: weet je nog of dat vliegtuig met transponder-aan vloog, dus met IFF-informatie van vooral hoogte enzoverder ?
geen IFF
wij dachten toen eerder aan een geavanceerde vorm van CHAFF
-
Vraagje: weet je nog of dat vliegtuig met transponder-aan vloog, dus met IFF-informatie van vooral hoogte enzoverder ?
geen IFF
Had ik al gedacht. Ze wilden geen info prijsgeven.
Op YT staan filmpjes van tankvliegtuigen KC-135 die bijna op collision koers vliegen (verschil 2000 Ft) en véél minder, dit met transponder-off en zelfs ECM-On :o
Hier een ontmoeting van 2 tankers met een Fed ex-vliegtuig dat snel naar 34000 Ft aanvraagt aan de luchtverkeersleiding...
Burgerluchtverkeersleiding werken bijna altijd enkel op secundairy radar, militaire zoals jij steeds op beide; dus burgerverkeersleiding weet meestal van niets, of moeten hun primary "radarinfo aanzetten". Maar dat doen ze niet graag want bepaalde ´groundclutter´ in radarnabijheid (airport) laat zich niet volledig onderdrukken ze willen een clear scherm zonder stipjes... militairen moeten altijd met primary radar in radiate werken anders zien ze ook geen vijand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yYaqGkBcoQ
Ghost planes - Chemtrails planes fly with transponder Off or with electronic countermeasures On
FedEx Aircraft on dangerous collision heading with what appears to be two (2) tankers. Vertical separation under 2,000 feet.
"... FedEx 5034 with request"
"... FedEx 5034 is requesting flight level '340' (34,000 feet)"
Second tanker on collision heading...
FedEx 5034 descends to 34,000 feet only to discover a third tanker at that altitude.
Conclusion: tankers were operating at civilian altitude with transponder off. The control tower had no idea the Air Force tankers existed and no radar system was available to warn the FedEx pilot of danger.
Hier hetzelfde filmpje van de Fed Ex 5034 van Liveleak met wat meer uitleg over die grote KC-135 tankvliegtuigen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PBzPoIvkSg
Ook bevestigt in Wikipedea, type en hoogte:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)#Delivery_methods
Stratospheric sulfate aerosols (geoengineering)
The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects[1] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[2] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as sulfuric acid[3], hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[4] and balloons has been proposed.[5]
Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol precursor gases (H2S and SO2).[2] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of the tropopause, which varies from 11 km (6.8 miles/36,000 feet) at the poles to 17 km (11 miles/58,000 feet) at the equator.
Aircraft such as the F15-C variant of the F-15 Eagle have the necessary flight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as the KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling and have greater payload.
[4] #bron#: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3619703R (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3619703R)
Het wordt helemaal niet van Wikipedia gehaald en dat na 3 jaar, een teken dat die "zwavelmanier" van "geo-engineering" toen een normale zaak was en is...
Nu met andere middelen zoals aluminium en barium, vermoedelijk verwerkt in kerosine-additieven.
vb Bariumverbinding: http://chemtrails.cc/docs/chemtrails.cc_the_not_so_secret_ingredient_02-2009.pdf
"The Not-So Secret Ingredient: Stadis 450″ Stadis 450 : dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt
wij dachten toen eerder aan een geavanceerde vorm van CHAFF
Idd dachten... een oefeninkske met jamming kan natuurlijk...
# bron #
Title: Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering
Authors: Robock, Alan; Marquardt, Allison; Kravitz, Ben; Stenchikov, Georgiy
Affiliation: AA(Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA), AB(Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA), AC(Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA), AD(Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA)
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 19, CiteID L19703 (GeoRL Homepage)
Publication Date: 10/2009
Origin: AGU
Keywords: Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513), Atmospheric Composition and Structure: Volcanic effects (8409), Global Change: Impacts of global change (1225), Global Change: Climate dynamics (0429, 3309)
DOI: 10.1029/2009GL039209
Bibliographic Code: 2009GeoRL..3619703R
Abstract
Injecting sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere has been suggested as a means of geoengineering to cool the planet and reduce global warming. The decision to implement such a scheme would require a comparison of its benefits, dangers, and costs to those of other responses to global warming, including doing nothing. Here we evaluate those factors for stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. Using existing U.S. military fighter and tanker planes, the annual costs of injecting aerosol precursors into the lower stratosphere would be several billion dollars. Using artillery or balloons to loft the gas would be much more expensive. We do not have enough information to evaluate more exotic techniques, such as pumping the gas up through a hose attached to a tower or balloon system. Anthropogenic stratospheric aerosol injection would cool the planet, stop the melting of sea ice and land-based glaciers, slow sea level rise, and increase the terrestrial carbon sink, but produce regional drought, ozone depletion, less sunlight for solar power, and make skies less blue. Furthermore it would hamper Earth-based optical astronomy, do nothing to stop ocean acidification, and present many ethical and moral issues. Further work is needed to quantify many of these factors to allow informed decision-making.
btw is er een klimatoloog onder ons ?
LATEST STRANGE WEATHER-Gigantic Rotating Cloud.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKJ1s7l3GrI&feature=related :-\
-
btw is er een klimatoloog onder ons ?
LATEST STRANGE WEATHER-Gigantic Rotating Cloud.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKJ1s7l3GrI&feature=related :-\
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg)
http://www.realistnews.net/Thread-gigantic-rotating-cloud-vortex
-
http://www.realistnews.net/Thread-gigantic-rotating-cloud-vortex
Lang moeten zoeken achter die facepalm en die rare site ? :D
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/double-facepalm.jpg)
of drie: http://files.chesscomfiles.com/images_users/tiny_mce/Reb/three-stooges-triple-facepalm.jpg
Waarom neem je gewoon wikipedia niet ? ;)
Blijkbaar een rolwolk:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolwolk
Rolwolken zijn relatief zeldzaam. Ze verschillen van shelf clouds omdat rolwolken helemaal los staan van de basis van de onweersbui of van andere wolken. Meestal ‘rollen’ rolwolken om een horizontale as.
De rolwolk ontstaat wanneer koudere lucht die met de onweersbui meekomt vanaf enige hoogte, in aanraking komt met veel warmere lucht aan het aardoppervlak. De koude lucht drukt dan de warme vochtige lucht omhoog, waardoor de vochtige lucht condenseert en er een wolk ontstaat.
Dus de titel van dat YT-filmpje was toch heel juist. :)
btw is er een klimatoloog onder ons ?
LATEST STRANGE WEATHER-Gigantic Rotating Cloud.mp4
Interglot
strange bijv.nw. / bijw.
vreemd, merkwaardig, curieus, uitheems, zonderling, vreemdsoortig, eigenaardig, raar, uniek, zeldzaam, zelden, uitzonderlijk, schaars, ongewoon, ongemeen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcus_cloud
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Roll-cloud.JPG/200px-Roll-cloud.JPG)
-
Nu moet je zelf eens kritisch al de door jou aangehaalde stukken eens lezen, en de bronvermelding eens nagaan...
Ik zie daar zeer veel ETCGroup opduiken...
-
Weeral niet inhoudelijk ingaan op de talrijke links, je hebt tenminste de titel toch gelezen ?
Geoengineering op grote schaal/andere middelen, waar zijn ze mee bezig ?
Wiens middelen ?
Wie zou dit dan betalen, want gratis is het in geen geval - aanpassingen aan vliegtuigen, sproeiproduct, transporteren, bijvullen, repareren, ...
enkele seconden kijken is al genoeg, ge kunt ook de commentaar van de piloot en copiloot volgen op de spray off en dan weer spray volle bak weer aan.
(sproeien ze op zeer hoge wolken of is het willekeur ? geen idee... whatever)
Die vliegt gewoon even door een andere (warmere) luchtlaag. Dus even geen condens. Kan je gewoon buiten soms ook zien.
Met wat geluk zie je ook dat het om andere luchtlagen gaat .
Contrails - en die kunnen 6 uur of zo blijven hangen - zijn geen vanzelfsprekendheid achter een vliegtuig.
Ze komen en gaan, naargelang luchtlagen, hoogte , temperaturen...
De very-low-tech achteruitkijkspiegel op een U-2 / TR-1 is er NIET om achteruit te parkeren of te zien of 'm ingehaald wordt ...
Maar 't is zo ambetant als je niet gezien wil worden, en er hangt een witte pluim aan uw gat.
FedEx Aircraft on dangerous collision heading with what appears to be two (2) tankers. Vertical separation under 2,000 feet.
Zover ik kan zien, zijn dat Boeing 747 - die zijn enkel in Iran in gebruik als A2A tanker.
Voor een A340 zijn ze wat kort & dik .
Geen KC-135 dus.
1000 ft separation is normaal.
Militair verkeer in luchtwegen volgt trouwens netjes mee ATC.
Valt er je niks op ???
De FedEx gasten maakt het duidelijk volstrekt niks uit ....
Brilletje op de vensterbank.
Filmpje maken.
Busy day at the office. Dit zijn situaties die je transatlantisch vaak tegenkomt.
Hands-off flying, op autopilot.
Volgens mij stijgen ze naar FL340 ipv dalen.
Minder brandstof aan boord = hoger kunnen vliegen, als de voorganger ook mee stijgt.
Heel het treintje stijgt dan mee.
Kwestie van wat aan hun fuel-bonus te werken.
Men weet hier duidelijk wie waar en hoe hoog vliegt ...
De poster van het filmpje was blijkbaar bezorgd genoeg om er onnodige muziek over te mixen zodat het onverstaanbaar wordt.
Het enige alarmerende aan het filmpje is de tekst die de poster er bij zet ... dat zijn de conclusies die hij wil trekken, en wil pushen.
FAIK is ook de communicatie volledig bogus.
Ik zie hier gewoon vliegtuigjes die gewone contrails trekken.
Met steeds grotere motoren en grotere volumes verplaatste lucht door de fans, gaan die ook steeds steviger worden.
btw is er een klimatoloog onder ons ?
LATEST STRANGE WEATHER-Gigantic Rotating Cloud.mp4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKJ1s7l3GrI&feature=related Undecided
Rolwolk.
Behoorlijk zeldzaam maar niks nieuw.
Paar jaar geleden kon je er in België nog een zien op de juiste plaats en tijd.
Geen vliegtuig in de buurt trouwens ...
-
Wie op een transatlantische vlucht wakker blijft kan dit allemaal zelf zien.
Niks abnormaal of geheimzinnig aan.
Gewoon dagelijkse drukte op de luchtsnelweg, want iedereen die dezelfde richting uit gaat volgt hetzelfde wegje.
Met wat geluk zie je ook de rood-oranje contrails als de zon net goed staat.
De rest van de B$ ga ik zelfs niet meer lezen.
-
De rest van de B$ ga ik zelfs niet meer lezen.
Dacht ik al dat je er weinig van begrijpt.
Daarenboven negeer je zelfs officiële bronnen.
-
Nu moet je zelf eens kritisch al de door jou aangehaalde stukken eens lezen, en de bronvermelding eens nagaan...
Ik zie daar zeer veel ETCGroup opduiken...
En verder ..... ? zij geven toch de refertes , inhoud, en de beslissingen die ik hier al vertaald heb !!
IPCC (top Mexico) of UN bronnen (top Nagoya) ook niet goed, waar denk je dat de ETCGroup zijn mosterd haalt ? AMAI ! ::)
En waarom antwoord je niet op de vraag, of begrijp je de vraag niet:
Waarom bant de UN *en IPCC bepaalde geo-engineering als ze niet moest bestaan ?
*De IPCC wijkt eerder uit...
Is het Bundesministerie van Duitsland OK als bron ? ???
De directe link waar ze het "als onschuldige tests verkopen (# volgens Kopp Online # )" kan ik je ook geven:
http://www.bmbf.de/en/8493.php
Exploratory Studies on Climate Engineering
Are direct, large-scale technical interventions in the Earth's radiation budget or carbon cycle potential solutions to global warming? Or should we avoid climate engineering for fear of possible incalculable side effects? An interdisciplinary team of experts has compiled the first comprehensive science-based report on the subject on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Entitled "Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate," the report was presented to State Secretary Dr. Georg Schütte in Berlin on 5 October 2011.
The researchers conducted a total of six exploratory studies from the point of view of various disciplines (natural sciences, international law, ethics, economics, social studies, and political studies). The overall report also includes a comprehensive review and evaluation.
The exploratory studies concluded that some climate engineering concepts could reduce the greenhouse gas effect and mitigate global warming, at least on paper. However, Professor Gernot Klepper of the Kiel Earth Institute, who coordinated the study, concludes that all of the proposals are likely to involve significant ecological risks and side effects, economic costs, and potential for social conflict.
The BMBF will contribute the studies to the international debate, including the work of the IPCC. On a national level, the findings are intended to enable a well-substantiated debate in politics and society. The studies are available for download at the Kiel Earth Institute:
http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/activities/research/scoping-study-climate-engineering/view?set_language=en
Scoping report Climate Engineering
Climate engineering – a collective term for large-scale technical interventions in the Earth‘s climate system – is increasingly discussed as an option to respond to anthropogenic climate change. Climate engineering technologies cover technologies both for the causative reduction of and the symptomatic compensation for anthropogenic climate change. The former are called carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies because they reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, the latter radiation management (RM) technologies because they directly influence radiation balance and therefore temperature. As the definition implies, any application of climate engineering has potentially global effects: climate and ecosystems would be changed across the world, affecting the environments of whole societies. For this reason, a purely scientific or economic analysis of the topic falls extremely short, precisely because climate engineering affects so many environmental media, societies and areas of human life.
The scoping report “Large-scale intentional interventions into the climate system: Assessing the climate engineering debate” has been conducted by an interdisciplinary team of experts from six disciplines on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The Kiel Earth Institute has coordinated this project.
Links >>> Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate
>>>> Overview graphic: Overview of selected Climate Engineering approaches
Contact
Dr. Wilfried Rickels
Institut für Weltwirtschaft
Tel. +49 431 8814 408
wilfried.rickels@ifw-kiel.de
Aangezien ik je al de link en hint gegeven had, maar je staat er blijkbaar niet voor open want je negeert het.
De Duitse online pers (Kopp Online) niet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogp44qKfGts
Duitse regering informeert bevolking over chemtrails
15.11.2011
De Duitse regering informeert haar bevolking sinds vorige maand op internet over chemtrails. Dat meldt het Duitse Kopp Online. Waarnemers vermoeden dat geo-engineering, het bewust ingrijpen in het functioneren van de Aarde, al tenminste 20 jaar lang wordt toegepast. Geo-engineering wordt op de # website van het Duitse ministerie van Onderwijs en Onderzoek (BMBF)# verkocht als een onschuldige methode om klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Met behulp van geo-engineering wil het ministerie straling van de Zon tegenhouden en CO2 in de atmosfeer reduceren als gevolg waarvan de Aarde minder snel zou opwarmen en het broeikaseffect zou verminderen. Op haar website erkent het ministerie dat de maatregelen niet zonder risico zijn en dat sommige vragen vooralsnog onbeantwoord blijven. Ook wordt duidelijk dat chemtrails slechts een klein onderdeel zijn van de ingrijpende maatregelen die effect hebben op grootschalige systemen op Aarde. Wetenschappers zijn bezorgd dat de chemicaliën die wereldwijd worden verspreid kunnen leiden tot serieuze aandoeningen.
De film vd topicstarter met Nederlandse ondertitels, dus waar die # waarnemers duidelijk wetenschappelijke bewijzen daarvoor hebben (jaarlijkse metingen) en duidelijk tonen, maar als je de film niet wilt bekijken zeg het DAN ! >:(:
(!!! Chemtrails - NL ondertitel/subs) What In The World Are They Spraying? - Full Length
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeVK1gwjUhE&feature=player_embedded
Onder andere door zulke films worden wereldwijd maatregelen getroffen -of proberen ze (zoals UN/IPCC-moratoriums) - zulke experimenten in te dammen.
Ik ga hier verder echt niet meer op ingaan, meer duidelijke links kan men hier niet plaatsen.
(en daarmee beweer ik niet dat ALLE links 100 % de waarheid vertellen zonder maar iets te overdrijven, ik ben niet helderziend ! :P)
Natuurlijk kun je onderstaande tekst op het eerste zicht met een korrel zout nemen (is menselijk), maar als je de film bekijkt - en dat heb ik gedaan - , dan weet je dat die wetenschappers overtuigende bewijzen hebben en zich niet zomaar laten doen.
Hochgeladen von DutchTruth2010 am 29.08.2011
Wat word er in hemelsnaam over ons uitgesproeid?!
Onze mooie blauwe luchten worden al jaren verpest door chemtrails.
Lange vliegtuigstrepen door de lucht die soms heel de dag blijven hangen, naar elkaar toetrekken en uiteindelijk heel wazige, dunne wolkendekens veroorzaken.
Ons is altijd verteld dat dit gewoon condensatiesporen (contrails) waren en het feit dat het nu zo zichtbaar is zou komen door de toename in vliegverkeer.
Wel, niets is minder waar blijkt nu!
Al zo'n 15 jaar is men aan het experimenteren in lucht, recht boven onze hoofden, met het sproeien van grote ladingen aluminium, barium en strontium.. Inderdaad, in grote mate schadelijke voor de gezondheid van al het leven op deze planeet -- die laatste 2 stoffen zijn zelfs radioactief!!
Deze film geeft o.a. inzicht in wat er nu eigenlijk gebeurt, wat voor gevolgen het heeft voor ons en alles op deze planeet, het laat zien welke mensen/groepen er alles aan doen dit te stoppen en op wat voor regeringsniveaus men er wetenschap van heeft.
Informeer jezelf en weet wat 'ze' alles wat leeft aandoen zodat dit eindelijk stopt -- hoe eerder hoe beter!!
Movie Description:
The Chemtrail/Geo-Engineering Coverup Revealed. By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze. Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: who is doing this and why. With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water - all supposedly for the betterment of mankind. Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 - and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it. Do not watch this documentary if you have high blood pressure.
Nederlandse ondertiteling / Dutch subs
Het is een tweejaarlijkse UN-top (die van 2010 Nagoya was een ban op climate engineering):
http://www.cbd.int/convention/
directe link:
http://www.cbd.int/abs/decisions/
Relevant COP Decisions
Decision X/1
Decision IX/12
Decision VIII/4
Decision VII/19
De belangrijkste tekst heb ik al eerder vertaald ook die van de IPCC COP 16 die in Mexico plaats vond.
Nog eens:
EN een vertaling:
... in Japan op 29 Oktober 2010 het volgende werd beslist:
Citaat
Moratorium op Geo-engineering (uitstel van Klimaat-manipulatie) op de VN-ministerconferentie in Japan: Riskante technologische klimaatmanipulaties geblokkeerd.
Nagoya, Japan - In een historische consensus beslissen de 193-leden van het VN-Verdrag inzake Biologische Diversiteit (CBD) tijdens hun tiende tweejaarlijkse ontmoeting met een (de facto) moratorium op geo-engineering (klimaat-manipulatie) projecten en experimenten, dat "Elke publieke of private experimenten of avonturisme, manipuleren van de planetaire thermostaat in strijd zal zijn met deze zorgvuldig ontworpen VN-consensus", aldus Silvia Ribeiro, Latijns-Amerikaanse directeur van ETC Group.
De overeenkomst, bereikt tijdens het ministeriële gedeelte van de twee weken durende bijeenkomst van 110 milieuministers, vraagt de regeringen om ervoor te zorgen dat er geen geo-engineering activiteiten meer plaatsvinden met risico's voor het milieu, de biodiversiteit en de daarmee samenhangende sociale, culturele en economische effecten. Het VBD secretariaat werd ook opgedragen om verslag uit te brengen over de verschillende geo-engineering voorstellen en mogelijke intergouvernementele regulerende maatregelen.
De ongewoon sterke consensus/overeenkomst bouwt voort op een moratorium van 2008 ivm. oceaan fertilisatie. Deze overeenkomst, bereikt op COP 9 in Bonn, zet de rem op de litanie van mislukte "experimenten", zowel publieke als private, om de atmosferische kooldioxide te isoleren in de diepe oceanen door het verspreiden van voedingsstoffen op het zee-oppervlak. Sindsdien is de aandacht gericht op een reeks van futuristische voorstellen om een percentage van de zonnestraling via grootschalige ingrepen in de atmosfeer, de stratosfeer en de ruimte, die de verandering van de mondiale temperatuur en neerslagpatronen verhinderen.
"Deze beslissing plaatst duidelijk de maatregelen ivm. geo-engineering van de Verenigde Naties waar ze thuis horen," zei ETC Group Executive Director Pat Mooney. " Deze beslissing is een overwinning voor het gezond verstand, en men zal voorzichtiger moeten zijn. Het zal het rechtmatig wetenschappelijk onderzoek niet remmen. Besluiten ivm. geo-engineering kunnen niet worden gemaakt door kleine groepen van wetenschappers uit een kleine groep van landen die willekeurige richtlijnen opstellen om het klimaat te hacken (kraken,manipuleren). De weinige geloofwaardigheid die deze inspanningen kunnen gehad hebben binnen bepaalde politieke kringen in het Noorden werd aan dingelen geslagen door dit besluit. De Britse Royal Society en haar partners moeten hun initiatief ivm. het reguleren van zonnestraling (Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiative) annuleren en respect hebben voor het besluit dat regeringen van alle landen gezamenlijk hebben besloten, nl. dat de toekomstige beraadslagingen ivm. geo-engineering zouden moeten plaatsvinden binnen de VN, waar alle landen een plaats hebben aan de tafel en waar de civiele samenleving kan kijken en invloed hebben op wat ze doen.
En de heren van het IPPC / COP16:
Citaat
"Opening of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16)
Cancun - Mexico, 29 November 2010
Statement delivered by Dr Rajendra Pachauri Chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"
...
"Het werk aan het IPCC Vijfde Assessment Rapport (AR5) is goed op snelheid, en de wetenschappelijke gemeenschap heeft op uitermate goede wijze gereageerd op het verzoek van het Panel om haar toegewijde betrokkenheid waar te maken. Een record aantal van ongeveer 3000 voordrachten van prominente wetenschappers waren ingediend voor het AR5, en uit deze zijn een totaal van 831 zijn geselecteerd door het IPCC als belangrijkste auteurs en redacteurs.
Het toepassingsgebied van de AR5 is tevens uitgebreid bovenop de vorige verslagen, en zou bijvoorbeeld de speciale behandeling omvatten van onderwerpen als wolken en aërosolen, geo-engineering (opties van weermanipulatie), duurzaamheid en gelijke behandeling, en zich nog veel meer richten op de economie en sociale gevolgen van de klimaatverandering. De komende vier jaar zal worden gekenmerkt door een intense activiteit binnen de IPCC, met als belangrijkste onderdeel de twee belangrijke speciale verslagen over hernieuwbare energie en extreme gebeurtenissen, die reeds het volgende jaar zouden gepubliceerd worden. In september 2013 moet de werkgroep I een rapport als onderdeel van de AR5 afgeronden en nadien de verslagen van de werkgroepen II en III, respectievelijk. Het syntheseverslag van de AR5 zal worden afgerond in november 2014, een uitvloeisel van de AR5 cyclus. "
Bronnen in overvloed van die rapporten, google maar:
U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects (http://www.google.be/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPEA_deBE432BE433&q=U.N.+urged+to+freeze+climate+geo-engineering+projects)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/21/us-geoengineering-idUSTRE69K18320101021
(Reuters) - The United Nations should impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, green groups say, fearing they could harm nature and mankind.
The risks were too great because the impacts of manipulating nature on a vast scale were not fully known, the groups said at a major U.N. meeting in Japan aimed at combating increasing losses of plant and animal species.
Envoys from nearly 200 countries are gathered in Nagoya, Japan, to agree targets to fight the destruction of forests, rivers and coral reefs that provide resources and services central to livelihoods and economies.
A major cause for the rapid losses in nature is climate change, the United Nations says, raising the urgency for the world to do whatever it can to curb global warming and prevent extreme droughts, floods and rising sea levels.
Some countries regard geo-engineering projects costing billions of dollars as a way to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth or soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.
"It's absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world's support," Pat Mooney, from Canada-headquartered advocacy organization ETC Group, told Reuters on the sidelines of the October 18-29 meeting.
"They shouldn't proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay."
Some conservation groups say geo-engineering is a way for some governments and companies to get out of taking steps to slash planet-warming emissions.
The U.N. climate panel says a review of geo-engineering will be part of its next major report in 2013.
SOLAR REFLECTORS
Some of the geo-engineering schemes proposed include:
-- Ocean fertilization. Large areas are sprinkled with iron or other nutrients to artificially spur growth of phytoplankton, which soak up carbon dioxide. But this could trigger harmful algal blooms, soak up nutrients and kill fish and other animals.
-- Spray seawater into the atmosphere to increase the reflectivity and condensation of clouds so they bounce more sunlight back into space.
-- Placing trillions of tiny solar reflectors out in space to cut the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.
-- Artificial volcanoes. Tiny sulfate particles or other materials are released into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, simulating the effect of a major volcanic eruption.
-- Carbon capture and storage. Supported by a number of governments and involves capturing CO2 from power stations, refineries and natural gas wells and pumping it deep underground.
Mooney said the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) should expand its de-facto moratorium on ocean fertilization agreed in 2008 to all geo-engineering, although the proposal was resisted by some countries, including Canada, earlier this year.
Canada said in Nagoya that it would work with the CBD.
"Canada was simply concerned about the lack of clarity on definitions including what activities are included in 'geo-engineering'," Cynthia Wright, head of the delegation, said in an email response.
"Canada shares concerns of the international community about potential negative impacts of geo-engineering on biodiversity and is willing to work with other CBD Parties to avoid these impacts," she said.
Environmentalists said geo-engineering went against the spirit of the Nagoya talks, which aims to set new targets for 2020 to protect nature, such as setting up more land and marine protected areas, cutting pollution and managing fishing.
"We are certainly in favor of more (geo-engineering) research, as in all fields, but not any implementation for the time being because it's too dangerous. We don't know what the effects can be," said Francois Simard of conservation group IUCN.
"Improving nature conservation is what we should do in order to fight climate change, not trying to change nature."
(Reporting by Chisa Fujioka; Editing by David Fogarty)
En de uitslag van die UN meeting en ook die van de IPCC heb je dus gelezen.
-
Lijkt wel Mega business geworden voor de GW, CO2-lovers, en voor de rest :-X en ogen en oren :-X ik ben maar de pianist... ;)
Wie is die Bill Gates eigenlijk ? Wat weet die daar nu van ? ;D
(ook uit luchtballons zoals in ref Wiki)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/17/us-geoengineers-spray-sun-balloon
GUARDIAN - US geoengineers to spray sun-reflecting chemicals from balloon
Experiment in New Mexico will try to establish the possibility of cooling the planet by dispersing sulphate aerosols
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2011/8/31/1314801635995/Geoengineering--a-rainbow-008.jpg)
The field experiment in solar geoengineering aims to ultimately create a technology to replicate the observed effects of volcanoes that spew sulphates into the stratosphere. Photograph: Gallo Images/Getty Images
Two Harvard engineers are to spray sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
The field experiment in solar geoengineering aims to ultimately create a technology to replicate the observed effects of volcanoes that spew sulphates into the stratosphere, using sulphate aerosols to bounce sunlight back to space and decrease the temperature of the Earth.
David Keith, one of the investigators, has argued that solar geoengineering could be an inexpensive method to slow down global warming, but other scientists warn that it could have unpredictable, disastrous consequences for the Earth's weather systems and food supplies. Environmental groups fear that the push to make geoengineering a "plan B" for climate change will undermine efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
Keith, who manages a multimillion dollar geoengineering research fund provided by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, previously commissioned a study by a US aerospace company that made the case for the feasibility of large-scale deployment of solar geoengineering technologies.
His US experiment, conducted with American James Anderson, will take place within a year and involve the release of tens or hundreds of kilograms of particles to measure the impacts on ozone chemistry, and to test ways to make sulphate aerosols the appropriate size. Since it is impossible to simulate the complexity of the stratosphere in a laboratory, Keith says the experiment will provide an opportunity to improve models of how the ozone layer could be altered by much larger-scale sulphate spraying.
"The objective is not to alter the climate, but simply to probe the processes at a micro scale," said Keith. "The direct risk is very small." (* niet groot dus...)
While the experiment may not harm the climate, environmental groups say that the global environmental risks of solar geoengineering have been amply identified through modelling and the study of the impacts of sulphuric dust emitted by volcanoes.
"Impacts include the potential for further damage to the ozone layer, and disruption of rainfall, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions – potentially threatening the food supplies of billions of people," said Pat Mooney, executive director of the Canadian-based technology watchdog ETC Group. "It will do nothing to decrease levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or halt ocean acidification. And solar geoengineering is likely to increase the risk of climate-related international conflict – given that the modelling to date shows it poses greater risks to the global south."
A scientific study published last month concluded that solar radiation management could decrease rainfall by 15% in areas of North America and northern Eurasia and by more than 20% in central South America.
Last autumn, a British field test of a balloon-and-hosepipe device that would have pumped water into the sky generated controversy. The government-funded project – Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (Spice) – was cancelled after a row over patents and a public outcry by global NGOs, some of whom argued the project was a "Trojan horse" that would open the door to full-scale deployment of the technology.
Keith said he opposed Spice from the outset because it would not have improved knowledge of the risks or effectiveness of solar geoengineering, unlike his own experiment.
"I salute the British government for getting out and trying something," he said. "But I wish they'd had a better process, because those opposed to any such experiments will see it as a victory and try to stop other experiments as well."
The Guardian understands that Keith is planning to use the *Gates-backed fund to organise a meeting to study the lessons of Spice.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
GUARDIAN - *Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2012/2/6/1328524578701/Microsoft-Corp.-chairman--005.jpg)
The billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group of climate scientists lobbying for geoengineering experiments. Photograph: Ted S. Warren/AP
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate
The billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group of climate scientists lobbying for geoengineering experiments.
A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/graphic/2012/jul/17/geoengineering-world-map
GUARDIAN - Geoengineering projects around the world - map
ETC Group has produced a world map of geoengineering that represents the first attempt to document the expanding scope of research and experimentation in the large-scale manipulation of Earth or climate systems
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2012/7/16/1342442197020/Geoengineering-001.png)
En persagentschap REUTERS nog eens (zo blijven jullie op de hoogte ;)):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-geoengineering-research-idUSBRE8550P020120606
LONDON | Wed Jun 6, 2012 9:38am EDT
Scientists warn geoengineering may disrupt rainfall
LONDON (Reuters) - Large-scale engineering projects aimed at fighting global warming could radically reduce rainfall in Europe and North America, a team of scientists from four European countries have warned.
Geoengineering projects are controversial, even though they are largely theoretical at this point. They range from mimicking the effects of large volcanic eruptions by releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, to deploying giant mirrors in space to deflect the sun's rays.
Proponents say they could be a rapid response to rising global temperatures but environmentalists argue they are a distraction from the need to reduce man-made carbon emissions.
Critics also point to a lack of solid research into unintended consequences and the absence of any international governance structure for such projects, whose effects could transcend national borders.
A small geoengineering experiment in the UK was recently abandoned due to a dispute over attempts by some of the team involved to patent the technology.
In this new study scientists from Germany, Norway, France and the UK used four different computer models that mimic the earth's climate to see how they responded to increased levels of carbon dioxide coupled with reduced radiation from the sun.
Their scenario assumed a world with four times the carbon dioxide concentration of the preindustrial world, which lead author Hauke Schmidt says is at the upper end, but in the range of what is considered possible at the end of this century.
They found that global rainfall was reduced by about 5 percent on average using all four models.
"Climate engineering cannot be seen as a substitute for a policy pathway of mitigating climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," they said in the study, published in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union.
Under the scenario studied, rainfall diminished by about 15 percent, or about 100 millimeters per year, compared to pre-industrial levels, in large areas of North America and northern Eurasia.
Over central South America, all the models showed a decrease in rainfall that reached more than 20 percent in parts of the Amazon region.
(Editing by Mark Heinrich)
-
Michel,
Aangezien er nu nog na 20 jaar van geclaimde geoengineering op grote schaal met behulp van lijnvliegtuigen er toch nog altijd twee onderzoekers een ballon gaan gebruiken om de effecten te onderzoeken, denk ik eerder dat je je flink laat vallen.
Geo-engineering is inderdaad een mogelijkheid, maar zoals je ook kan lezen staat ze zeker niet op punt - China probeerde ten tijde van de Olympische spelen in Peking de regen bij te sturen en de lucht te zuiveren, en dat is volgens mij nog het best gelukte resultaat - en bijgevolg zijn al die onheilspellende berichten bovenop filmpjes van brave piloten pure fantasie. Chemtrails bestaan niet.
Men heeft je letterlijk blaasjes wijsgemaakt. Warme lucht.
-
Michel,
Aangezien er nu nog na 20 jaar van geclaimde geoengineering op grote schaal met behulp van lijnvliegtuigen er toch nog altijd twee onderzoekers een ballon gaan gebruiken om de effecten te onderzoeken, denk ik eerder dat je je flink laat vallen.
Aangezien is geen argument...
Een ballon voor chemtrails te verspreiden neemt men eerder voor een test op zeer kleine schaal, dat begrijp je toch.
Men probeert af en toe iets anders uit, wie weet vinden ze iets beters of iets goedkopers whatever, daarom eerst op kleine schaal vooraleer men dat spul op grote schaal gebruikt... Daar - dus een field experiment (zie link) - daar zal niemand iets tegen hebben...
Geo-engineering is inderdaad een mogelijkheid, maar zoals je ook kan lezen staat ze zeker niet op punt - China probeerde ten tijde van de Olympische spelen in Peking de regen bij te sturen en de lucht te zuiveren, en dat is volgens mij nog het best gelukte resultaat - en bijgevolg zijn al die onheilspellende berichten bovenop filmpjes van brave piloten pure fantasie.
Natuurlijk staat ze niet op punt, maar toch experimenteert men al volop.
Dus dat ene filmpje met Italiaanse bron zijn dus contrails :o: ???
Deze foto:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LecpxQwqMrY/TEcIAqbYW2I/AAAAAAAAKlw/bgqbm_ck2l4/s400/kc-10+3.jpg)
Sorry maar ik heb nergens een weerlegging of debunking van dat filmpje gevonden (post 13, KC -10), je kunt ook eens proberen. ;)
Chemtrails bestaan niet.
;D
Er wordt wel degelijk veel geexperimenteerd met geo-engineering dat er controle op moet komen, dat zijn ze overeengekomen (UN IPCC).
Ik wacht trouwens nog altijd op jouw antwoord, waarom de UN ze "serieuze wetten opstelt" tegen iets dat maar op een klein experimenteel onbeduidende schaal met ongevaarlijke stoffen gebeurd... volgens jou. HALLO Wooter ?
Dus chemtrails bestaan, dat is al zeker. Of het nu uit luchtbalonnen (kleine schaal) komt of van (militaire) vliegtuigen (grote schaal), het blijven chemtrails.
Ook als men de samenstelling van de kerosine veranderd door bepaalde additieven x % te verhogen al blijft het maar in de orde van xx-milligrams, want er is ruime tolerantie bij al die additieven, is dat in feite "chemtrailing", of zijn persistentere uitlaatgassen als normaal geen chemische manipulatie ? ;D
Een vb van de vele: %-punten gewicht factor x 6http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinonylnaphthylsulfons%C3%A4ure
Das Gemisch ist ein Antistatikum und wird als Additiv in Schmiermitteln und Kerosin (Jet A-1) eingesetzt.
Dinonylnaphthylsulfonsäure wird aus Naphthalin hergestellt, das zunächst mit Nonen zu Dinonylnaphthalin alkyliert und darauf folgend zum Endprodukt sulfoniert wird.[1]
Verwendung
Dinonylnaphthylsulfonsäure wird – ebenso wie die beiden Erdalkalimetallsalze Barium- und Calciumdinonylnaphthylsulfonat – vielfältig als Zusatz in Schmiermitteln (wie Schmierfett oder Kühlschmiermitteln), Industrielacken und Rostschutzmitteln eingesetzt. Typischerweise werden dabei Anteile von 0,5 bis zu 3 Gewichtsprozenten zugesetzt.[1]
Bron Chevron : http://zijheefthet.nl/afb/zozeg_exxon.png
Bij de additieven met een O weet de afnemer het zelfs niet hoeveel %-additief erin zit, natuurlijk binnen de toleranties/specifications (zie legende)
Ik citeer best alles, lezen zul je het toch niet. ;D
http://chemtrails.cc/docs/chemtrails.cc_the_not_so_secret_ingredient_02-2009.pdf
"The Not-So Secret Ingredient: Stadis 450″ Stadis 450 : dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt
The not-so-secret ingredient: Stadis 450
(dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt)
Qbit - http://chemtrails.cc/
DRAFT - 2-2009
The most commonly used commercial turbine jet fuels today are named JET-A, JET-A1, and
JET-B. All of these are kerosene type fuels except JET-B which is a kerosene-naphtha blend
for colder climates [1, 2]. JET-A is used internationally and JET-A1 is available only in the US.
The US military primarily uses its own kerosene jet fuel, JP-8, which is similar to JET-A1 [11,
2].
A number of chemical additives are used in these fuels including corrosion inhibitors,
temperature stabilizers, detergents, and static electricity dissipators. Static dissipators are of
particular importance to atmospheric aerosol and environmental research, due to their metal
content and their widespread use in commercial and military jet fuel [17, 8]. Octel Starreon
Stadis® 450 is a static dissipator, comprised of dinonylnapthalene sulfonic acid and other
organic solvents, and according to the product MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet), it
contains two "trade secret" ingredients [18]. Stadis 450 is the only approved anti-static
additive for use in Air Force aviation fuels, including JP-8, JP-5, JET-A1, and JET-B [9].
DuPont, the original manufacturer, reports having divested its production of Stadis 450 in
September of 1994 to Octel Starreon LLC , now a subsidiary of Innospec Fuel Specialties.
Innospec also manufactures another static dissipator additive called Statsafe®. However,
according to Exxon Mobil, Stadis 450 continues to be the static dissipator of choice for
commercial and military aviation [17].
... static dissipator additive is widely used in jet kerosene .... Stadis® 450 is the only
additive currently manufactured for use in aviation turbine fuels approved by the major
turbine and airframe manufacturers.
Although the "trade secret" ingredients are well protected by the manufacturer, a recent study
contracted by the EPA [10] and other sources strongly imply that these ingredients are salts of
barium and/or calcium. The EPA classifies this dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt
as a "HPV" (High Production Volume) chemical, meaning it is "produced or imported into the
United States in quantities of 1 million pounds or more per year [12]." This same study reports
that "Based on the available toxicity results, dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt
appears to be the most biologically active member of the [dinonylnaphthalene] category [10]."
It is hypothesized that jet exhaust aerosol [4] is responsible for cloud seeding, rainbow
diffraction, and dichroism observed in persistent contrails [5]. While "skeptics" may dismiss
the very existence of persistent contrails, the phenomenon is widespread and commonly
accepted among atmospheric scientists [7]. The exact cause of aerosol cloud seeding has
been the subject of endless debate, but it has been shown conclusively that the earth's
albedo, or its overall reflectivity, is increased by contrail aerosol (see chemtrails.cc sattelite
imagery category).
In the 3 days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 during which the FAA grounded all
commercial aircraft in the US, a unique opportunity to study atmospheric aerosol presented
itself. David J. Travis, University of Wisconsin found significant changes in surface
temperature and presented his findings to the American Meteorological Society [6].
There are a number of byproducts of combustion of kerosene jet fuel and its additives,
including water, carbon dioxide, soot, sulfuric and nitrous acid, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and
metal ions [3], although this is by no means a complete list. Carbon monoxide and aromatic
hydrocarbons also result from incomplete combustion.
Aerosol and contrail formation processes in an aircraft plume and wake as a function of plume age and
temperature [4]. (image courtesy GRID-Arendal)
Not surprisingly, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) only makes casual mention
of these metal particles, and fails to provide any information as to their role in atmospheric
aerosol formation.
If one phenomenon gives away the presence of metals in the aerosol, it would be the large
number of high altitude rainbows produced by contrail aerosol. Virtually unheard of prior to
1990, bright rainbows, sometimes referred to as "circumhorizon arcs" or more commonly,
"chembows," can be observed regularly wherever jet aircraft fly.
According to a patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Company for dispersing metallic aerosol into
the stratosphere, particles may stay suspended for up to a year. Hughes Aircraft, a major US
defense contractor [14, 15], has been bought and sold by other defense contractors such as
Boeing and Raytheon in recent years.
Exeprt from United States Patent 5003186:
The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary
technique may be via the jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic
particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the
particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.
To avoid making qualitative judgments, I will not belabor the point that the horizon has been
consistently gray, anywhere near commercial airports, since at least the early 1990s. But it
would appear that the metal aerosol is indeed being dispersed, and staying suspended. While
corporate media generally claims there can be no further debate about climate change, there
are thousands of respected scientists who dispute the notion that atmospheric CO2 is the
primary cause, and take exception to the idea that human intervention is required to "correct"
it. At least 400 of them have testified to this effect to the US Senate [16].
Critical thinkers must question whether, with such flimsy scientific evidence, controlling the
climate is the true motivation behind this metal aerosol dispersal. A 10 mile thick blanket of
metal aerosol may have other uses to the militaries of the world, particularly in the fields of
surveillance, aircraft and missile guidance, radar ducting, and radio frequency weapons
systems.
Citations
1. http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
3. GRID-Arendal in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/034.htm
4. http://chemtrails.cc/2009/01/27/arkansas-news-report/
5. http://chemtrails.cc/2009/01/25/what-are-chembows/
6. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/05/52512
7. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9919.html
8. DETAIL SPECIFICATION, TURBINE FUEL, AVIATION, KEROSENE TYPE, JP-8 (NATO
F-34), NATO F-35, and JP-8+100 (NATO F-37) [pdf]. U.S. Army. Downloaded from
http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/stddgn/data%5C078_24_28%5CPreviews%5C15880.pdf
9. AEF Fuels Management Pocket Guide [pdf]. U.S. Air Force. Downloaded from
http://www.aflma.hq.af.mil/lgj/AEF_fules_book_2007_final.pdf
10. High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program Test Plan and Data Review,
Dinonylnaphthalene Category [pdf].
http://www.epa.gov/hpv/pubs/summaries/dinapcat/c15766tp.pdf
11. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/engines-fuel.htm
12. http://www.epa.gov/hpvis/
13. PermitApplicationReports200808-Marathon_Stadis_450.pdf Source:
http://www.louisvilleky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E20509AE-4D28-4603-83B3-
B16A640C9D10/0/PermitApplicationReports200808.pdf
14. Hughes Aircraft Company
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_Aircraft
16. Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
From http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
17. Exxon Mobil World Jet Fuel Specifications with Avgas Supplement. From:
http://www.exxonmobilaviation.com/AviationGlobal/Files/WorldJetFuelSpec2008_1.pdf
18. Octel Starreon Stadis 450 MSDS
Officiele bronnen tonen dat duidelijk aan, kritische wetenschappers hebben die chemische stoffen opgevangen en gemeten, en het dus aangetoond.
In places like California and Hawaii, for example, independent researchers, scientists and people in general measured the amounts of heavy metals in their water and soil to reveal the massive poisoning the planet is being subject to through chemtrailing alone. Water and soil samples were submitted for evaluation and the amounts of heavy metals reached tens of thousands of times the normal amounts. All over the United States and Europe, people report the death of thousands of trees and other forms of plant and animal forms, which when analyzed have a common denominator: high concentrations of heavy metals and other chemicals. Surprisingly, most if not all of the areas with the largest number of deaths of animals and plants are far away from industrial centers, which helps reject the idea that their death is a direct result of industrial pollution or human activity. Most of these trees that are dying are located in forests or tropical paradises where the concentration of environmental pollutants is low. In order to confirm that these animals and plants were dying due to the chemicals sprayed over from the sky, analyses were also performed to see if the chemicals in the soil and water corresponded to those found in living animals or plants. Laboratory tests confirmed it.
Researcher Deborah Whitman, who performed her own analysis of dying plants and trees in the city of Solana Beach, California, found that the levels of aluminum were 387 milligrams per kilogram, barium was at 18.4, strontium at 113 and titanium at 15.2.
Along with the load of heavy metals and other chemicals that are sprayed daily by airplanes all over the world, researchers have independently found that other materials contained in the chemtrails are causing people to develop rashes and bruises on their skin. These materials include metallic salts or oxides, engineered biological products and fibers or filaments.The spraying of these materials has changed the the air humans and animals breathe. The air is no longer neutral, a quality that is necessary to support most forms of life. The fibers and filaments are invisible to the human eye, but are easily observed if people use “black lights”. That is how researchers and scientists became aware of their existence. They have called this particles “dry rain”. Scientific evidence shows that in order for the planet to have rainfall, particles of dust and other natural elements in the atmosphere form a nuclei which become unstable and then precipitate in the form of rain. But what happens when someone injects smaller than normal particles into the atmosphere? Those particles never become unstable, and with it they are capable of forming the haze looking man-made clouds that cover the sky after an airplane sprays the chemicals cited above. The smaller the particle, the more stable the water droplet, the lesser rainfall. That is what many call Geo-engineering.
Retired Wildlife Biologist and water specialist Francis Mangels found through laboratory analysis that the levels of Aluminum, Barium and Titanium seen as tolerable in water and soil had been surpassed exponentially. In places where aluminum levels had to be of 0.5 micrograms per liter, Mangels found that pond water had 12,000 micrograms per liter, 24,000 times the normal amounts. Snow drift at Mount Shasta showed levels even greater of 61,000 micrograms per liter, or 122, 200 times the normal level. In a separate analysis, pond water in Bellavista, California, had aluminum levels of 375,000 micrograms per liter. The level of barium reached 3090 micrograms per liter and strontium 345 micrograms per liter. Samples of water and soil taken from below houses presented normal levels of these and other metals.
Maar blijkbaar lees jij anders als ik.
Two Harvard engineers are to spray sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.
The field experiment in solar geoengineering aims to ultimately create a technology to replicate the observed effects of volcanoes that spew sulphates into the stratosphere, using sulphate aerosols to bounce sunlight back to space and decrease the temperature of the Earth.
Daarbij is Wikipedea heel duidelijk, in alle talen (nederlandse versie spreekt alleen van (meer) zwavel (als normaal in de kerosine zit), ook dat is chemisch, zoals additieven ...).
Aangezien niemand het ook maar verbeterd zal er waarheid in steken of het kan niet weerlegd worden.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-Engineering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-engineering
Geo-engineering is het bewust ingrijpen in het functioneren van de aarde, tegenwoordig is hierbij veelal het doel klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Het betreft ingrijpende maatregelen die direct effect hebben op grootschalige systemen.
Voorbeelden
Zwavel de atmosfeer in pompen om de temperatuur op aarde te laten dalen.
en hoe dat het verspreidt wordt of kan worden staat er duidelijk in, ook in alle talen.
En meestal zijn het de militairen die ermee beginnen (geheimhouding is veel beter) daarom dat ontdekt filmpje opYT, die kleine tanker KC-10 van post 13.
(http://www.africanbrains.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Solar-radiation-management.jpg)
Een vliegtuig met reflecterende aerosols om de zonnestraling te reflecteren... en de aarde minder te laten opwarmen.
Solar Radiation Management aims at reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth and include:
■Increasing surface reflectivity - among the techniques are painting infrastructure white and covering deserts with reflective material.
■Increasing the reflectivity of clouds above oceans – there are suggestions that whitening clouds over parts of the ocean could help in cooling the Earth.
■Injecting chemicals into the atmosphere - it has been proposed that certain chemicals could be released into the second major layer of the Earth’s atmosphere to help scatter sunlight back into space.
■Light shields/deflectors - scientists are exploring the use of shields placed in space to reflect or deflect solar radiation.
■Large-scale reforestation – Forests help in cooling the surface in the tropics and sub-tropics while warming the surface in higher latitudes as they are much darker than snow and thus absorb more solar radiation.
While SRM techniques have been proposed as possibly useful in case of an emergency as they are fast acting, to avoid a climate “tipping point”, there are concerns they could create other problems, such as changing precipitation patterns.
Normale klassieke contrails (condensvorming) versterken de cirruswolkenvorming ttz ze waaien uit tot veerachtige cirruswolken
(http://www.kennislink.nl/publicaties/een-streep-door-het-weer) maar die zijn integendeel nefast en doen de aardtemperatuur eerder stijgen, of Wikipedia is (alweer) verkeerd. ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
Cirrus clouds are known to raise the temperature of the air beneath them by an average of 10 °C (18 °F).
Dus 1+1 = 2 er moet iets gebeuren aan die vliegtuiguitlaatgassen om die cirruswolken aan te pakken , en dat doet men ook...
edit, met de hele uitleg wat hoe en waarom:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045102/fulltext/
Environmental Research Letters
Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
David L Mitchell and William Finnegan
Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV 89512-1095, USA
E-mail: david.mitchell@dri.edu
Received 1 April 2009 Accepted 12 August 2009 Published 30 October 2009
Abstract. Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal size. The higher the cirrus, the greater their impact is on OLR. Thus by changing ice crystal size in the coldest cirrus, OLR and climate might be modified. Fortunately the coldest cirrus have the highest ice supersaturation due to the dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation. Seeding such cirrus with very efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei should produce larger ice crystals due to vapor competition effects, thus increasing OLR and surface cooling. Preliminary estimates of this global net cloud forcing are more negative than –2.8 W m–2 and could neutralize the radiative forcing due to a CO2 doubling (3.7 W m–2). A potential delivery mechanism for the seeding material is already in place: the airline industry. Since seeding aerosol residence times in the troposphere are relatively short, the climate might return to its normal state within months after stopping the geoengineering experiment. The main known drawback to this approach is that it would not stop ocean acidification. It does not have many of the drawbacks that stratospheric injection of sulfur species has.
....
2.2. Delivery mechanism
Since commercial airliners routinely fly in the region where cold cirrus clouds exist, it is hoped that the seeding material could either be (1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol, or (2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail. The objective would not be to seed specific cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals. Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this. With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.
2.3. Production of new cirrus
Aircraft (Helten et al 1998, Spichtinger et al 2004) and microwave limb sounder (MLS) satellite measurements (Read et al 2001, Spichtinger et al 2003) show that large portions of the clear-sky upper troposphere are supersaturated with respect to ice. While natural cirrus may or may not form in these regions over time, the global, quasi-uniform distribution and continuous introduction of efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei might produce more cirrus clouds in these regions than would otherwise occur.
... ...]
6. Recapitulation
Recent GCM studies (Sanderson et al 2008, Mitchell et al 2008) suggest that climate sensitivity is very sensitive to upper tropospheric cloud cover and humidity, making cirrus clouds a logical candidate for climate modification efforts. Cirrus clouds also affect OLR more than other cloud types, with their modification directly addressing the radiation imbalance imposed by greenhouse gases. Due to the expected dominance of homogeneous freezing nucleation at temperatures below –40 °C, it may be possible to decrease cirrus cloud coverage by introducing efficient heterogeneous ice nuclei at these temperatures where the cirrus greenhouse effect is strongest. Due to vapor competition effects, this may result in larger ice crystals with higher fall velocities, which should decrease cirrus coverage and increase OLR, thus cooling surface temperatures. While there may be an initial increase in cirrus coverage due to ice supersaturation in clear skies, over time the increase in net downward transport of water substance (due to higher ice fall speeds) should reduce the relative humidity and cirrus coverage of the upper troposphere. Based on one GCM study, it appears that seeding cirrus clouds on a global scale could cool the planet by well more than 2.8 W m–2, perhaps enough to cancel the radiative forcing due to a doubling of CO2 (3.7 W m–2). The distribution of seeding material could be done relatively inexpensively through the airline industry. Seeding along conventional flight corridors should increase OLR preferentially over the northern high latitudes where global warming is most severe. But this may also slightly intensify the global temperature gradients, the jet streams and the frequency and strength of frontal systems. Studies employing a variety of GCMs might be needed to understand the feedbacks involved. On the other hand, this geoengineering option does not have many of the drawbacks that the most studied geoengineering option has, that option being the stratospheric injection of sulfur compounds.
...
Nog een redelijk recent verwittigingsbericht, wat hebben die gasten toch ? (Wooter zegt toch dat het niet bestaat) ;):
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-geoengineering-research-idUSBRE8550P020120606
Scientists warn geoengineering may disrupt rainfall
By Chris Wickham
LONDON | Wed Jun 6, 2012 9:38am EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - Large-scale engineering projects aimed at fighting global warming could radically reduce rainfall in Europe and North America, a team of scientists from four European countries have warned.
Geoengineering projects are controversial, even though they are largely theoretical at this point. They range from mimicking the effects of large volcanic eruptions by releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, to deploying giant mirrors in space to deflect the sun's rays.
Proponents say they could be a rapid response to rising global temperatures but environmentalists argue they are a distraction from the need to reduce man-made carbon emissions.
Critics also point to a lack of solid research into unintended consequences and the absence of any international governance structure for such projects, whose effects could transcend national borders.
A small geoengineering experiment in the UK was recently abandoned due to a dispute over attempts by some of the team involved to patent the technology.
In this new study scientists from Germany, Norway, France and the UK used four different computer models that mimic the earth's climate to see how they responded to increased levels of carbon dioxide coupled with reduced radiation from the sun.
Their scenario assumed a world with four times the carbon dioxide concentration of the preindustrial world, which lead author Hauke Schmidt says is at the upper end, but in the range of what is considered possible at the end of this century.
They found that global rainfall was reduced by about 5 percent on average using all four models.
"Climate engineering cannot be seen as a substitute for a policy pathway of mitigating climate change through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," they said in the study, published in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union.
Under the scenario studied, rainfall diminished by about 15 percent, or about 100 millimeters per year, compared to pre-industrial levels, in large areas of North America and northern Eurasia.
Over central South America, all the models showed a decrease in rainfall that reached more than 20 percent in parts of the Amazon region.
(Editing by Mark Heinrich)
Men heeft je letterlijk blaasjes wijsgemaakt. Warme lucht.
Citeer eens al die "men" aub.
En waaruit heb jij je blaasjes ? ;)
-
Lees jij de bronreferenties van wat je hierop plaatst?
Ik pakte er 1 artikel uit, wired.com kan je op zich nog betrouwen, en daar staat plots iets heel wat anders in over 9/11 em het effect op het weer :)
-
Hier een mooie discussie, goed te volgen op basis van refertes:
http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/08/06/chemcloud/
-
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo-engineering
Geo-engineering is het bewust ingrijpen in het functioneren van de aarde, tegenwoordig is hierbij veelal het doel klimaatverandering tegen te gaan. Het betreft ingrijpende maatregelen die direct effect hebben op grootschalige systemen.
Weer eentje serieus "betrapt":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
World's biggest geoengineering experiment 'violates' UN rules
Controversial US businessman's iron fertilisation off west coast of Canada contravenes two UN conventions
A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.
Lawyers, environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a "blatant violation" of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this week.
Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon credits.
George is the former chief executive of Planktos Inc, whose previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred from ports by the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental Protection Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project would violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing of international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilisation experiments
Scientists are debating whether iron fertilisation can lock carbon into the deep ocean over the long term, and have raised concerns that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, produce toxic tides and lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and global warming.
...]
Laatste update hierover vanuit Canada: als geen specifieke wet het verbiedt mag je zomaar alles en nog wat met tonnen lossen - buiten 200 nM economische zone - ? wtf ??? :o En in de atmosfeer xx km boven de aarde mag men ook alles ?
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Ocean+fertilization+Rogue+climate+hacker+Russ+George+raises/7416834/story.html
Ocean fertilization: 'Rogue climate hacker' Russ George raises storm of controversy
By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News October 19, 2012 11:03 AM
...
George is the kind of can-do entrepreneur - or "rouge climate hacker" as he was described this past week - that makes some worry about unauthorized experiments putting the planet at risk.
It's the ocean this time, and the experiment will likely do no serious damage, says Ken Denman, an oceanographer at the University of Victoria. Next time, he says, it could be some multimillionaire or "rogue" country shooting sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to block incoming solar radiation in a bid to slow global warming.
"That's the big worry," says Denman, a former Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist who has spent years working on international efforts to better protect the global atmosphere and oceans.
Environment Canada's Enforcement Branch is investigating George's B.C. experiment, which scattered 100 tonnes of iron in waters off the windswept islands of Haida Gwaii.
But Denman notes that the iron was scattered outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, where Canada has no jurisdiction.
And while critics call George's experiment a "blatant violation" of international agreements, Denman says the regulations "have no teeth." The London Convention permits "legitimate scientific research" and that is open to broad interpretation.
John Disney, CEO of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. that's running the experiment, says several federal departments, including Environment Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, were aware of the experiment long before the iron was scattered into the sea in July spawning what is said to be a huge plankton bloom covering as many as 10,000 square kilometres.
And he insists the experiment does not violate Canadian laws or international conventions. "We consulted three sets of lawyers," says Disney.
George, the chief scientist on the project, was not available for an interview. "He's sitting under a mountain of data," says Disney, who was fielding media queries.
He describes George is "an absolute genius" who know how to get things done.
George is also considered a "rouge climate hacker," as Britain's New Scientist put it this week, who has been running questionable projects for years.
George's California company, Planktos Corp., backed by Vancouver financier Nelson Skalbania, tried to scatter tonnes of iron dust into the water near the Galapagos Islands in 2007 in the first attempt to make money from ocean fertilization. ...]
Voor diegene die het interesseert...
http://www.plausiblefutures.com/2010/03/geoengineering-hacking-the-climate/
(http://www.plausiblefutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/hacktheplanet.jpg)
Hack the Planet: Science’s Best Hope – or Worst Nightmare – for Averting Climate Catastrophe.
Mar 24, 2010
Geoengineering: hacking the climate
While humans have unintentionally been altering Earth’s climate for centuries, some scientists have begun to study how to intentionally hack the globe to cool the overheated planet.
Eli Kintisch’s new book, Hack the Planet, provides a thorough and nuanced portrait of the development of geoengineering. Through long acquaintance with the field’s biggest names, Kintisch, a staff writer for Science, paints a deep sociological portrait of a radical new scientific discipline bursting messily into the world.
Read the entire interview in Wired. Also read “Climate Hackers Want to Write Their Own Rules” in Wired.
Read the Royal Society report “Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty” (PDF). Also check out the classic military study “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″ (PDF).