If I designed an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

Hmmmmm . . . The point is in the title of the thread . . . If I were going to create an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program . . . This is what I would do . . . Just demonstrating how plausible it would be . . .

Bottom-line argument for the EXISTENCE of an ICAAIP (Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program)


IMO,


1) There is no significant barrier to full implementation of efforts to alter the climate . . . Except public scrutiny!!!!!


2) The technology, materials, budget, infrastructure, and motives have been ripe for decades . . .


3) The timeline between scientific proposals and feasibility has been more than sufficient. . . . The arguments of unintended side effects have been engaged and found acceptable. . . .


4) The materials are abundant, the airframes are more than adequate for the missions. . . . The manpower, facilities and techniques for security and secrecy are well practiced . . .


5) THE ONLY ARGUMENT is HAVE they been doing it for years, just recently started or have yet to start????????





January 30, 1998
hoover digest » 1998 no. 1 » environment
Sunscreen for Planet Earth
by Edward Teller


"Global warming is too serious to be left to the politicians. Hoover fellow Edward Teller suggests a scientific solution to the problem. (If there is a problem, that is.)"


"Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?"




http://www.hoover.org/publications/h...t/article/6791

[George B]

Could be you have done it yuorself and are trying to make it look silly so that no one really looks hard.

Could be that there is a teapot orbiting jupiter.

Could be that the British royal family are all actualy reptiles.

Could be that I am killed by a meteor strike in the next 30 seconds........nope OK ...the next 30 seconds.......... no again...OK, the next 30 seconds......


"Could be..." is not an argument for "is"

There is not enough evidence to prove it exists or proof it doesn't exists . . . I am presenting information on how it could be done . . . if someone wanted to do so . . .


News
Stratospheric Pollution Helps Slow Global Warming
Particles of sulfuric acid--injected by volcanoes or humans--have slowed the pace of climate change in the past decade
By David Biello | July 22, 2011 |
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming

[George B]

1) We have increased sulfur particulates in the stratosphere during a time of no major volcanic eruptions . . . speculation from NOAA and NASA . . . maybe it was from minor volcanic eruptions , but not really sure . . . They need more research to sort it out . . .


2) Others point to increased coal burning in China . . . like NOAA and NASA didn't have this information as well . . . Yea Sure!


3) Others reported major reductions in anthropomorphic sources of atmospheric sulfur during this same time . . .


4) Let me make a suggestion that NOAA, NASA and Scientific American cannot make . . . what about an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program . . . Injecting one million tons of sulfur compounds directly into the stratosphere!!!!!!

[George B]

Can Aircraft used for injection purposes be protected from public disclosure?. . . . .Good Question. . . . See below . . .at least in US airspace. . . .




Can I track military aircraft? What about presidential movements in Air Force One? (Back to top)


FlightAware does not track military aircraft and presidential movement flights (e.g., Air Force One, Marine One, etc.) are operated by the US military.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military




Can I block my aircraft on FlightAware? (Back to top)


Yes, there are two ways to accomplish this:
FlightAware Selective (Un)blocking


Enroll in FlightAware's selective unblocking service for a tail number that is not already blocked.


FlightAware can process your request with next-day service and will block your operations from the general public. Your FlightAware account(s) will continue to be able to securely view and track your aircraft. FlightAware will complete the paperwork necessary for blocking your aircraft on other flight tracking services and will provide you with everything you need to accomplish the block.


Blocking request through NBAA BARR


The NBAA (National Business Aviation Association) operates and


maintains the BARR (Blocked Aircraft Registration Request) in conjunction with the FAA. This service is free although it may take 30-45 days to take effect and will not allow your user account to track your aircraft on FlightAware unless you subscribe to FlightAware's selective unblocking service.


For us to submit your request, simply contact us to walk you through the process.
http://flightaware.com/about/faq.rvt#military


------------


The dismantling of BARR, which took effect Aug. 2, was met with bipartisan opposition in Congress. Many members of Congress and senators voiced their opposition to the change in letters to the Department of Transportation in the summer, and two bills to restore the program began making their way through each house of Congress. The appropriations bill that led to the program’s reinstatement cut off funding to anything that would limit an operator’s ability to request that his or her aircraft’s information be blocked from public dissemination.


Proponents of BARR argued that releasing information to the public such as the aircraft’s altitude, airspeed, destination, and estimated time of arrival invades privacy, poses a security risk to those on board, and threatens the competitiveness of U.S. companies.
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...-restored.html

[George B]

Considering there is no urgent need for a geo engineering program and people seem to be accepting of the idea to begin with, you've also remained completely unconvincing on the need for secrecy.

I disagree . . . I think many scientists think we are running out of time . . . including the President's own Science Czar!!!!!

As to the issue of global warming. . . A most complex issue as all atmospheric issues are . . .


I can attest that glaciers are receding in Alaska, at least the ones I watched over the years I lived there. . . And I also feel the information regarding the wholesale melting of the Greenland Ice Pack is correct. . . .Dr Teller believed global warming was true, but he didn't necessarily believe it was caused by human activity.


Whether warming is a normal cycle or is just especially bad this time around I would have to say it is most likely possible. . . .I think geologic evidence and ancient human habitation areas now being found under water indicate that a warming period occurred from 10,000 to 13,000 years ago. . . .who is to say we are not headed for another change in climate. . . .hot or cold. . . . THE DIFFERENCE IS . . . We think we are now capable enough to play with nature to the point we can delay or alter climatic cycles. . . GOOD LUCK!!!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...years-ago.html

[Jay Reynolds]

I don't know there would be a definitive test that could separate the activity from the background noise completely, possibly radiative density of stratospheric layering . . . if it is unexpected . . .

George, I already told you MONTHS AGO exactly which tests. You fail, bub.

http://metabunk.org/threads/111-Hist...ght=historical

[Jay Reynolds]

Stratopheric sulfur injection computer models doubling, or more, the sulfur concentrations needed to change the climate (1 to 1.5 Tg . . . Millions of Metric Tons)

Fail again, bub.

Gigatons = billion tons

Start learning science before doing science.

Multiply your figures by 1000, and tell us how easy it would be.

You set yourself up for a fail right from the start, dude..........

[George B]

Fail again, bub.

Gigatons = billion tons

Start learning science before doing science.

Multiply your figures by 1000, and tell us how easy it would be.

You set yourself up for a fail right from the start, dude..........

Who used the term "Gigatons = billion tons" ????? I didn't . . . The research paper didn't. .

You don't need to argue with me . . . You need to argue with the author of the research paper . . . Me thinks there are six zeros in 1,000,000 see below . . .

"138 If the decision were ever made to implement geoengineering, the amount of gas to loft,139 the timing and location of injections, and how to produce aerosols, would have to be considered,
140 and these are issues we address in other work [Rasch et al., 2008]. Here we just examine the
141 question of the cost of lofting 1 Tg of a sulfur gas per year into the stratosphere. Other more
142 speculative geoengineering suggestions, such as engineered aerosols [e.g., Teller et al., 1997],
143 are not considered here."


http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdf

" Convert metric ton to teragram (Tg)



http://www.convertunits.com/from/metric+ton/to/Tg
"How many metric ton in 1 Tg? The answer is 1000000.
We assume you are converting between metric ton and teragram.
You can view more details on each measurement unit:
metric ton or Tg
The SI base unit for mass is the kilogram.
1 kilogram is equal to 0.001 metric ton, or 1.0E-9 Tg.
Note that rounding errors may occur, so always check the results.
Use this page to learn how to convert between metric tons and teragrams.
Type in your own numbers in the form to convert the units!"

[MikeC]

There is not enough evidence to prove it exists or proof it doesn't exists . . . I am presenting information on how it could be done . . . if someone wanted to do so . . .

Palpably untue - in the message immediatly above the one you replied to me you wrote:

5) THE ONLY ARGUMENT is HAVE they been doing it for years, just recently started or have yet to start????????

Please at least make your lies clever or entertaining!

[George B]

Palpably untue - in the message immediatly above the one you replied to me you wrote:

Please at least make your lies clever or entertaining!

5) THE ONLY ARGUMENT is HAVE they been doing it for years, just recently started or have yet to start????????

The last phrase . . . includes the possibility that the program may not yet exist and there is not adequate evidence to prove any of the options listed . . .

[Mick]

Since there's no evidence anyone is doing this then "have yet to start" is obviously the answer that fits observation the best. And it's pretty open ended time-wise. I've no doubt the geoengineering will be done at some point, but I've no idea when. Might be 20 years, might be 200 years, might be 2,000.

[solrey]

George, you might want to read this report by the Keck Institute for Space Studies, Monitoring of geoengineering effects and
their natural and anthropogenic analogues

A number of climate intervention concepts, referred to as “geoengineering,” are being considered as a
potential additional approach (beyond mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions) to manage climate
change. However, before governments go down the path of attempting deliberate climate intervention
including precursor field-experiments, it is essential that the scientific community take the necessary
steps to validate our understanding that underpins any of the proposed intervention concepts in order
to understand all likely consequences and put in place the necessary strategies for monitoring the
expected and unintended consequences of such intervention. The Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS)
has sponsored a project to identify specific priorities for improved scientific understanding and focused
efforts to address selected priorities. This project does not advocate the deployment of geoengineering,
outdoor geoengineering experiments, or monitoring systems for such proposed geoengineering field
experiments, but is rather a precautionary study with the following goals:
• enumeration of where major gaps in our understanding exist in solar radiation management
(SRM) approaches,
• identification of the research that would be required to improve understanding of such impacts
including modeling and observation of natural and anthropogenic analogues to geoengineering,
and
• a preliminary assessment of where gaps exist in observations of relevance to SRM and what is
needed to fill such gaps.

Two scientists from Harvard responded to a grossly inaccurate article in The Guardian about their research:

In summary, we have been and are currently exploring possible new strategies for interrogating the stratospheric system without affecting the background stratosphere in any quantitative way. To date, we have not written any proposal to actually do so. We want to be absolutely clear that that we have no plans to implement a geoengineering field study to release “thousands of tonnes of sun-reflecting chemical particles into the atmosphere to artificially cool the planet, using a balloon flying 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico.”

It is premature to consider doing any such tests at a large scale to measure the climate response. Given the environmental threats to our planet and the growing pressure to seriously consider geo-engineering, we believe that we should actively begin to study (theoretically) what we might be able to learn if such proposals were advanced and ultimately undertaken.

We do not take the issue of geoengineering lightly. The care with which we have approached our research in this area over the decades speaks for itself.

George says:

There is no significant barrier to full implementation of efforts to alter the climate . . . Except public scrutiny!!!!!

Wrong again, George. There is a significant barrier which pretty much includes the entire scientific community.

Everything I've read from scientists in a variety of disciplines echoes the precautionary principle as stated in the aforementioned examples. I don't think George has any idea of the extent of observations being made of the atmosphere. If there were any active "covert atmospheric aerosol injection program", thousands and thousands of scientists studying the atmosphere would have found evidence within their myriad observations. If there were any evidence, the scientists skeptical of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming would be making a lot of noise about it. All George can come up with for evidence is one NASA study that doesn't even say what George claims. What I see is a small fringe of the scientific community simply discussing various options, while the vast majority of scientists are pretty much adamantly opposed to geoengineering given our current knowledge, or lack thereof, of Earth's climate.

I read that article from SciAm that George linked. Methinks George needs to work on his reading comprehension skills or at least not let his belief system get between the words and his brain. Here's what George said:

1) We have increased sulfur particulates in the stratosphere during a time of no major volcanic eruptions . . . speculation from NOAA and NASA . . . maybe it was from minor volcanic eruptions , but not really sure . . . They need more research to sort it out . . .


2) Others point to increased coal burning in China . . . like NOAA and NASA didn't have this information as well . . . Yea Sure!


3) Others reported major reductions in anthropomorphic sources of atmospheric sulfur during this same time . . .


4) Let me make a suggestion that NOAA, NASA and Scientific American cannot make . . . what about an Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program . . . Injecting one million tons of sulfur compounds directly into the stratosphere!!!!!!

However the article he references says it's really just a matter of sorting out the balance of contributions from both human and natural sources. The ongoing research is simply to narrow down the percent contribution from each source. They acknowledge some ongoing volcanic activity and increased emissions from China. Besides, they calculated the cooling effect to be a mere 0.07 Celsius, so if it's from geoengineering...it aint workin'.

The question is: why the increase in such aerosols? There have been plenty of smaller volcanic eruptions in recent years, such as the continuously erupting Soufriere Hills on Montserrat and Tavurvur on Papua New Guinea, which may have exploded enough SO2 into the atmosphere. And there has been plenty of coal burning in countries such as China, which now burns some 3 billion metric tons of the fuel rock per year, largely without the pollution controls that would scrub out the SO2, as is sometimes done in the U.S. In fact, a computer model study published July 5 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggested that such SO2 pollution in China has cancelled out the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations globally since 1998. Determining whether humans or volcanoes explain more of the increase in stratospheric aerosols is the focus of ongoing research, says PhD candidate Ryan Neely of the University of Colorado, who contributed to the NOAA research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...global-warming

Here's the abstract from the NOAA research paper published in the journal Science:

Recent measurements demonstrate that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently variable rather than constant, even in the absence of major volcanic eruptions. Several independent data sets show that stratospheric aerosols have increased in abundance since 2000. Near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period of about –0.1 watt per square meter, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred. Observations from earlier periods are limited but suggest an additional negative radiative forcing of about –0.1 watt per square meter from 1960 to 1990. Climate model projections neglecting these changes would continue to overestimate the radiative forcing and global warming in coming decades if these aerosols remain present at current values or increase.

So they say the background stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently variable and give an example of a similar negative forcing due to increased aerosols having occurred between 1960 and 1990.

A more recent NASA paper identifies the increase in aerosols is from volcanic eruptions in the tropics:

Major influence of tropical volcanic eruptions on the stratospheric aerosol layer during the last decade

The variability of stratospheric aerosol loading between 1985 and 2010 is explored with measurements from SAGE II, CALIPSO, GOMOS/ENVISAT, and OSIRIS/Odin space-based instruments. We find that, following the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, stratospheric aerosol levels increased by as much as two orders of magnitude and only reached “background levels” between 1998 and 2002. From 2002 onwards, a systematic increase has been reported by a number of investigators. Recently, the trend, based on ground-based lidar measurements, has been tentatively attributed to an increase of SO2 entering the stratosphere associated with coal burning in Southeast Asia. However, we demonstrate with these satellite measurements that the observed trend is mainly driven by a series of moderate but increasingly intense volcanic eruptions primarily at tropical latitudes. These events injected sulfur directly to altitudes between 18 and 20 km. The resulting aerosol particles are slowly lofted into the middle stratosphere by the Brewer-Dobson circulation and are eventually transported to higher latitudes.

So they accounted for the increase in aerosols.

[George B]

Since there's no evidence anyone is doing this then "have yet to start" is obviously the answer that fits observation the best. And it's pretty open ended time-wise. I've no doubt the geoengineering will be done at some point, but I've no idea when. Might be 20 years, might be 200 years, might be 2,000.

1) I have to be gone this morning . . . So excuse me for not answering every post this morning. . .
2) I think the real question is urgency and the people with the power and resources to act . . .
3) I submit the following for consideration as to the situation today for example . . .


"Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

07.24.12"

"For several days this month, Greenland's surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists."


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...land-melt.html

[solrey]

Let's take a look at some other key points in that NASA press release about Greenland surface melt.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland's weather since the end of May. "Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one," said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

Where's the sense of urgency? There are only a handful of alarmist types, like James Hansen, Bill McKibben and Phil Jones, that express any sense of urgency about climate change. Gotta read past the headlines there George. The recent incident of a couple of days of surface melt in Greenland is only unprecedented since satellite observations began a mere 30 years ago. According to ice core records that type of surface melt happens about every 150 years with the last occurrence in 1889. This recent melt event is hardly unprecedented within the context of the longer historical record.

[Mick]

It ridiculous George. What you are suggesting is akin to a plot from a James Bond movie. A tiny group of super-rich and powerful people decides, contrary to the majority of scientists in the geoengineering field, and pretty much contrary to all known science (perhaps with ESP?), that a SRM aerosol program is immediately needed, so they somehow spend billions of dollars doing it in secret, they leave no evidence, and nobody notices.

Entertaining speculation. Come back when you have some direct evidence that it's actually happening.

[George B]

It ridiculous George. What you are suggesting is akin to a plot from a James Bond movie. A tiny group of super-rich and powerful people decides, contrary to the majority of scientists in the geoengineering field, and pretty much contrary to all known science (perhaps with ESP?), that a SRM aerosol program is immediately needed, so they somehow spend billions of dollars doing it in secret, they leave no evidence, and nobody notices.

Entertaining speculation. Come back when you have some direct evidence that it's actually happening.

I didn't say it was immediately needed . . . scientific organizations have said for years global warming is and has been a problem . . .

By the way , what I am proposing has historical precedent . . . did you ever hear of Edward Teller and Star Wars . . . billions were spent . . . Much of it classified even to this day . . .

[George B]

You all harp that there isn't scientific agreement on climate change . . . But forget that the real people that make the decisions and have the power and resources may have quite a different opinion which could be based on classified or little known information . . .

[George B]

Another significant issue . . . regarding the sources of stratospheric sulfur . . . does sulfur have a finger print or tag?? I understand volcanic ash particles have the characteristics of the magma source but the sulfur compounds??? Atmopheric Science is a product of significant speculation and computer modeling . . . the amount of in situ measurement of the stratosphere is limited . . . can a satellite photo distinguish volcanic gas from ground sources or aircraft origins????http://www.rdg.ac.uk:8081/cfam/Resea...lcanicAsh.aspx

The volcanic ash chemistry is directly related to the chemistry of the source magma. The main component is silica, SiO2, in concentration in between 50% and 70%. Other components are: Al2O3, CaO, TiO2, FeO, MgO and Na2O.

[SR1419]

You all harp that there isn't scientific agreement on climate change . . . But forget that the real people that make the decisions and have the power and resources may have quite a different opinion which could be based on classified or little known information . . .

People like the Koch Brothers?? :

http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/03/koch-brothers


As for Star Wars- how is that a precedent? It was never secret...nor implemented.

[George B]

I am not going to pay to see the entire article . . . however, the following seems to indicate there is no good process to measure and test for geoengineering. . . despite your insistence that it would be obvious if such activity was on going . .


A Test for Geoengineering?
A Robock, M Bunzl, B Kravitz… - Science, 2010 - sciencemag.org
... The cloud would have to be maintained in the stratosphere to allow the climate system to cool in response, unlike for the Pinatubo case, when the cloud fell out of the ... Furthermore, no stratospheric aerosol observing system exists to monitor the effects of any in situ testing. ...


http://m.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.short

A Test for Geoengineering?


Summary


Scientific and political interest in the possibility of geoengineering the climate is rising (1). There are currently no means of implementing geoengineering, but if a viable technology is produced in the next decade, how could it be tested? We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale.

[solrey]

George, your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.

One of your sources says:

no stratospheric aerosol observing system exists to monitor the effects of any in situ testing. ...

All they're saying is currently there is no system in place to monitor the effects of in-situ testing, such as the changes that would occur in stratospheric chemistry and exactly how it would affect climate. They're not saying they can't detect changes in aerosol concentration, of course they can as the abstract from the article from SciAm you linked to demonstrates.

Recent measurements demonstrate that the “background” stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently variable rather than constant, even in the absence of major volcanic eruptions. Several independent data sets show that stratospheric aerosols have increased in abundance since 2000. Near-global satellite aerosol data imply a negative radiative forcing due to stratospheric aerosol changes over this period of about –0.1 watt per square meter, reducing the recent global warming that would otherwise have occurred. Observations from earlier periods are limited but suggest an additional negative radiative forcing of about –0.1 watt per square meter from 1960 to 1990. Climate model projections neglecting these changes would continue to overestimate the radiative forcing and global warming in coming decades if these aerosols remain present at current values or increase.

Obviously they can detect and monitor changes in stratospheric aerosol concentrations. As for determining aerosol origins from tropical volcanoes, they used LIDAR to "fingerprint" the sources and also tracked the migration of aerosols from the tropics into higher latitudes.

[George B]

George, your reading comprehension skills need some serious work.

One of your sources says:



All they're saying is currently there is no system in place to monitor the effects of in-situ testing, such as the changes that would occur in stratospheric chemistry and exactly how it would affect climate. They're not saying they can't detect changes in aerosol concentration, of course they can as the abstract from the article from SciAm you linked to demonstrates.



Obviously they can detect and monitor changes in stratospheric aerosol concentrations. As for determining aerosol origins from tropical volcanoes, they used LIDAR to "fingerprint" the sources and also tracked the migration of aerosols from the tropics into higher latitudes.

I am getting very tired of this . . . half the time I cannot log on and the rest of the time I cannot post . . . Well any way . . . what you don 't seem to comprehend is that the tiny amount of sulfur compounds that would be injected each day . . . not detectable . . . and indistinguishable from background . . . only the accumulative effect would be measured if at all on an annual basis . . . no clouds, no radar image, just another contrail if that at all . . .

[George B]

People like the Koch Brothers?? :

http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/03/koch-brothers


As for Star Wars- how is that a precedent? It was never secret...nor implemented.

That is what you have been told is it not . . . Try this report . . . http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/O.../1988/8837.PDF

[solrey]

That is what you have been told is it not . . . Try this report . . . http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/ota/O.../1988/8837.PDF

That report confirms that SDI, a.k.a. "Star Wars", was never secret nor implemented, at least in 1988 when the report was published. To wit:

Public Law 99-190 (continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1986) called for
the Office of Technology Assessment to conduct a”. . . comprehensive classified
study . . . together with an unclassified version . . . to determine the technologi-
cal feasibility and implications, and the ability to survive and function despite
a preemptive attack by an aggressor possessing comparable technology, of the
Strategic Defense Initiative Program. ” In addition, the accompanying Confer-
ence Report specified that . . . “This study shall include an analysis of the feasibil-
ity of meeting SDI computer software requirements. ”

This unclassified report completes OTA’s response to that mandate. It puts
SDI technologies in context by reporting the kinds of ballistic missile defense
(BMD) system architectures that the SDI organization has considered for “phased
deployment. ” It reviews the status of the various SDI technologies and system
components. It analyzes the feasibility of producing dependable software of the
complexity that advanced BMD systems would require. Finally, it summarizes
what is now known—and unknown—about the probable survivability of such sys-
tems against concerted enemy attacks of various kinds.
The study found that major uncertainties remain concerning the probable cost,
effectiveness, and survivability of the kinds of BMD system (which rely on kinetic
rather than directed-energy weapons) that might be deployable in the “phase-one’
proposed for the mid to late 1990s.

And for various reasons it was never fully developed or deployed, let alone "phase one". SDI was mostly hypothetical with few existing or future technologies related to or usable by the program. Everybody knew about it, "Star Wars" was widely lampooned in the media and it was determined to be scientifically unfeasible which is why the program was abandoned after just a few years.

George, who you trying to fool, bud?

[Trailspotter]

George, what sulfur compounds do you propose to inject from the planes? How would it be done technically? Aerosol particulates in questions are droplets of sulfuric acid, H₂SO₄, which is a highly corrosive substance. It could result from oxidation of sulfur dioxide, SO₂, which is again a toxic gas (that is released by volcanoes and in various industrial processes), or hydrogen sulfide, H₂S, which is also a very poisonous gas. Elemental sulfur is solid and can be powdered, but dispersing pyrophoric sulfur behind the planes seems to be technically difficult and extremely dangerous.

[George B]

That report confirms that SDI, a.k.a. "Star Wars", was never secret nor implemented, at least in 1988 when the report was published. To wit:



And for various reasons it was never fully developed or deployed, let alone "phase one". SDI was mostly hypothetical with few existing or future technologies related to or usable by the program. Everybody knew about it, "Star Wars" was widely lampooned in the media and it was determined to be scientifically unfeasible which is why the program was abandoned after just a few years.

George, who you trying to fool, bud?

You didn't see the classified version did you . . . There is a reason for that . . .

"The Strategic Defense Initiative program likely will continue to be a source of business, analysts say. Boeing's share of the program is classified in the Pentagon's ``black budget,'' but a 1986 document listed as an exhibit in a recent Boeing-related trial showed that the company's products division held SDI contracts valued at $859 million."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...4&slug=1054200

[George B]

George, what sulfur compounds do you propose to inject from the planes? How would it be done technically? Aerosol particulates in questions are droplets of sulfuric acid, H₂SO₄, which is a highly corrosive substance. It could result from oxidation of sulfur dioxide, SO₂, which is again a toxic gas (that is released by volcanoes and in various industrial processes), or hydrogen sulfide, H₂S, which is also a very poisonous gas. Elemental sulfur is solid and can be powdered, but dispersing pyrophoric sulfur behind the planes seems to be technically difficult and extremely dangerous.

You brought up the best question so far . . . congratulations . . . high tech problems . . . best minds in the world would love to get a shot at those . . . Seems all the proposals never address these problems . . . They assume they can be overcome . . .

[George B]

And, if we look at ourselves honestly, we would know that we have no intention of sharing the technology with them. Why else is the research classified Top Secret? Why would we share technology with them once we know that it works if we will not do so now when it is only a dream?
http://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/opinion/sdi.html

"Secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction."
Edward Teller

[Trailspotter]

You brought up the best question so far . . . congratulations . . . high tech problems . . . best minds in the world would love to get a shot at those . . . Seems all the proposals never address these problems . . . They assume they can be overcome . . .

Reminded me a joke that I heard in 70's


Soviet leader Brezhnev granted audience to a self-taught inventor, who claimed to have made an invention of the uttermost importance for national security.


"Just imagine, comrade General Secretary," started the inventor, "you press the button in your office and all american missiles explode in the silos and all their nuclear submarines sink to the ocean bottom."


"What a marvelous idea," said Brezhnev, "but how do we do it?"


"This is the easy part," replied the inventor. "Let the scientists think about it."

[George B]

Reminded me a joke that I heard in 70's


Soviet leader Brezhnev granted audience to a self-taught inventor, who claimed to have made an invention of the uttermost importance for national security.


"Just imagine, comrade General Secretary," started the inventor, "you press the button in your office and all american missiles explode in the silos and all their nuclear submarines sink to the ocean bottom."


"What a marvelous idea," said Brezhnev, "but how do we do it?"


"This is the easy part," replied the inventor. "Let the scientists think about it."

LoL!!!! Thank you for making a good point . . . just because scientists think something can be done it doesn't make it possible . . . it takes a different set of people to pull it off . . . I never said I thought an Intentinal Covert atmospheric aerosol injection program would work . . . I just think there are enough stupid powerful people around that they would try it . . .

[Des O]

I reiterate my point. You assume spraying sulfur compounds would look like a contrail in order to blend in with all existing aircraft. How do you know this? I have already mentioned you would need to get higher than the average commercial jet. Therefore these planes would not blend in with other aircraft.

Not to mention purchasing and loading all this sulfur into planes would create a pretty big paper trail. You will be handling hazardous chemicals which all need to be properly tracked when being transported. It is not as easy as you think to hide all this.

[George B]

I reiterate my point. You assume spraying sulfur compounds would look like a contrail in order to blend in with all existing aircraft. How do you know this? I have already mentioned you would need to get higher than the average commercial jet. Therefore these planes would not blend in with other aircraft.
.

"Commercial airliners typically cruise at altitudes of 9–12 km (30,000–39,000 ft) in temperate latitudes (in the lower reaches of the stratosphere).[2]



This optimizes fuel burn, mostly thanks to the low temperatures encountered near the tropopause and low air density, reducing parasitic drag on the airframe. It also allows them to stay above hard weather (extreme turbulence)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere

[George B]

Not to mention purchasing and loading all this sulfur into planes would create a pretty big paper trail. You will be handling hazardous chemicals which all need to be properly tracked when being transported. It is not as easy as you think to hide all this.

Sulfur compounds are one of the most commonly transported industrial substances in the world . . . rail would be my choice from Alberta to a remote airfield in Alberta . . .


Let's do some more math. . . I need a flight crew of four times nine . . . 36 total crew members. . . ground crew can be contracted at different airfields. . . .probably need another 30 or so people to load and clean the aircraft. . . .a few here or there to pick up and deliver industrial grade sulfur compounds. . . .the most common of all substances transported in the world. . . .


I would say I need about 100 people or so for the operation and another 50 for security. . . .


Total of 150 people and I can change the rate of climate change. . . .of course I need 1.5 Billion dollars as well. . .


To alter the climate . . . (Based on my calculations and the research paper's estimate) . . . WE need to inject from 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . .


Conclusion: Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . .


Data, references and calculations:


metric ton is an unit of weight. gallon is an unit of volumn.
the specific gravity of jet fuel is 0.7 therefore
(1 cubic meter of water equals 1 metric ton. the S.G. of water is 1)
1 /0.7=1.42cubic m=1420liter
1 gallon = 3.7 liter 1420/3.7=383.7 gallons
1 metric ton of jet fuel is 383.7 gallons


As the question is how many barrels per metric ton of 'crude oil', you can use the calculator on the U.S. Energy Information Administrations site:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/kids/
then select 'energy calculators'
Using the crude oil calculator shows 1 metric ton = 7.33 bbl crude oil. Crude oils vary depending on their specific gravity so this is an average for crude oil in the U.S.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_B...n_of_crude_oil


Only one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate. . . .(350,000 bbl/d) / 7.33 bbl = 47,748.98 metric tons of oil per day x .04 = 1,909.95 minimum tons of sulfur compounds produced each day


We Need . . . .(15 x 3) 91 tons each day = 4,095 metric tons for all missions
(So based on my calculations and the research papers estimate of needing 1 to 1.5 million metric tons of sulfur compounds to alter the climate . . . one operation in Alberta would supply 1/2 of all the sulfur compounds needed to change the climate !!!!!! Or just 2/3 of the sulfur compounds produced in Alberta . . . )


According to at least one source sulfur content ranges from (4 - 7% sulfur) by volume in Alberta from all petrochemical sources . . .


Alberta Total bbl/d production (187,000 bbl/d + 100,000 bbl/d + 135,000 bbl/d + 250,000 bbl/d + 110,000 bbl/d + 70,000 bbl/d + 350,000 bbl/d = 1,202,000 bbl/d ) / 7.33 bbl = 163,983.62 metric tons of oil per day x .04 = 6,559.34 metric tons of sulfur compounds


Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)


Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)


Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)


Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen


Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake[disambiguation needed], Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen


Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen




NOTE:


CANADIAN DEVELOPMENTS


Preliminary figures show Canadian sulphur production was roughly 8.1 Mt in 2008, an 8% decrease compared to 8.8 Mt in 2007. The decrease was from natural gas processing. Canadian elemental sulphur output in 2008 was 6.9 Mt, a decrease of 6.9% compared to 7.6 Mt in 2007. An additional 1.1 Mt of sulphur equivalent, in the form of sulphuric acid and liquefied sulphur dioxide, was recovered from the smelting of metals.


Canada exported approximately 7.6 Mt in 2008, a decline of 5.2% compared to 8 Mt in 2007. The decline occurred in elemental sulphur with exports of 6.8 Mt in 2008, down 6.4% from 7.3 Mt in 2007. Exports of sulphur in other forms (SOF) amounted to 776 000 t of sulphur equivalent. Exports to offshore markets were 4.7 Mt in 2008, a 10% decline compared to 5.2 Mt in 2007. The majority of the decline was in exports to China with shipments of 1.9 Mt in 2008, compared to 2.7 Mt in 2007. Exports to other offshore destinations increased roughly 10%, partially offsetting the export loss to China. Exports to the United States remained at levels comparable to 2007.


Canadian sulphur production was concentrated in the western provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Other provinces produced limited amounts of sulphur from oil refining and metals smelting.


http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/minerals-meta...y-reviews/3863


HIGHLIGHTS


Sulphur is a nonmetallic element used principally in the manufacture of fertilizers and in the production of chemicals, pulp and paper, and in metallurgical operations.


In Canada, the majority of elemental sulphur is obtained as a by-product of natural gas production. However, sulphur recovered from oil sands production is increasing concurrent with development of the oil sands.


Global production of sulphur in all forms is forecast to increase from 75 Mt in 2008 to 91.4 Mt by 2012, exceeding demand by some 4.1 Mt.


The price of elemental sulphur experienced a turbulent ride in 2008, hitting a high of US$840/t and a low of US$35/t.

[George B]

I reiterate my point. You assume spraying sulfur compounds would look like a contrail in order to blend in with all existing aircraft. How do you know this?

Existing research has indicated that for example, sulfur spiked fuel with concentrations up to 5,500 ppm do not show significant differences and I have found literature discussing fuels with concentrations up to 40,000 ppm or .40% by weight and higher http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006802.pdf . . . You are correct we don't know for sure . . . however, there is always night operations. . .


"This analysis addresses the question of whether environmental considerations
should be the limiting constraint to possible increases insulfur content of USAF jet fuels. Such increases are proposed inorder to increase the availability of jet fuels such as JP-4. The current average sulfur content of 0.05'.' by weight and two hypothesized levels Of 0.4~ percent and 1.0 percent are analyzed in this study. Aircraft emissions and meteorological conditions around an airbase are maximized to produce predicted "worst-case" ambient air quality levels."
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006802.pdf

[George B]

Where's the sense of urgency? .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmr5g...e_gdata_player
>

[Noble1965]

And we also don't know if it's anything more than a paranoid fantasy born of a negative world view.

[Steve Funk]

http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...eet.asp?id=109
The Payload of the KC 10 extender is 85 standard tons. 85tons x 27 flights/day x 250 days = 573k tons. You would have to double the number of flights.

[Mick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmr5g...e_gdata_player
>

That video explains why they would NOT do it.

Your theory is of the purest speculation, being backed by no evidence at all. It simultaneously needs a hyper rich, powerful, and competent set of people who are also stupid enough to try out what is essentially a huge gamble with the entire planet, using entirely new, untested and un-researched techniques, on a massive scale, and curiously undetectable.

What's the point of this thread? Not that I think your concoction is feasible, but you can pick any arbitrary conspiracy and say how it might have been done if you are not hindered by your theories being based on evidence, or being in any way testable.

[George B]

http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...eet.asp?id=109
The Payload of the KC 10 extender is 85 standard tons. 85tons x 27 flights/day x 250 days = 573k tons. You would have to double the number of flights.

Not my calculations . . . was research from a geoengineering paper . . .


fly a few aircraft at about $1.25 Billion 2008 dollars per year ( according to . . .lines 138 - lines 143 and graph on line 528 inhttp://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/GRLreview2.pdfaccording to this paper the required amount of sulfur aerosol can be delivered easily by dedicated flights by only [. . . line 528] using nine (9) KC 10 Extenders or equivalent aircraft, each flying three (3) flights a day, 250 days per year. . . . 27 flights per day).

[George B]

That video explains why they would NOT do it.

Your theory is of the purest speculation, being backed by no evidence at all. It simultaneously needs a hyper rich, powerful, and competent set of people who are also stupid enough to try out what is essentially a huge gamble with the entire planet, using entirely new, untested and un-researched techniques, on a massive scale, and curiously undetectable.

What's the point of this thread? Not that I think your concoction is feasible, but you can pick any arbitrary conspiracy and say how it might have been done if you are not hindered by your theories being based on evidence, or being in any way testable.

1) I never indicated this video was anything but an example of perceived urgency . . .

2) I never indicated that geoengineering should be done . . . nor have I indicated there are not significant opposition or concerns not to engage in the project . . . Not unlike the detonation of the first hydrogen bombs . . . the fear was an unending chain reaction . . . funny thing they did it anyway . . . Guess what . . . Edward Teller was part of the decision . . . same people who are IMO . . . possibly In charge of the geoengineering decision !!!!


3) With the present state of publicly known research . . . I have indicated that if such a decision were made . . . the best and most likely strategy is stratospheric injection of sulfur compounds . . .


4) I have just presented a set of information which I think makes the process more believable . . . it is an exercise in speculation and probability . . .


http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/Atomi...rogenBombs.cfm