Aerosol Spraying to Save the Planet? More MSM news on “Non-existent” Spraying
August 9, 2012 by Jack Blood
Filed under Sci-Tech
They say they are only thinking about it? See our past work HERE :
Or Check out the NEW documentary film – WHY in the World are they Spraying
Could Pumping Aerosols into the Atmosphere Stop Global Warming?
Heat waves. Drought. Storms. The extreme weather that has battered much of the planet in the past few years, up through the heat wave cooking most of the United States this summer, has more scientists thinking about extreme solutions to the climate crisis.
Geoengineering – making large-scale changes to the environment – is no longer fringe science, with the debate shifting from whether it should be done to how.
One controversial idea gaining traction among scientists is injecting small particles, known as aerosols, into the stratosphere to block the sun’s radiation.
Aerosols reflect solar radiation back into space, lowering Earth surface temperatures. They can also provide “seeds” around which water droplets coalesce to form clouds, thus further increasing the planet’s reflectivity. The particles are fairly long-lived in the stratosphere, a stable region of the atmosphere that begins five to six miles up. This makes the idea of aerosols’ use as a worldwide planet-cooler fairly attractive.
The effects of aerosol injections are at least somewhat known, since volcanic eruptions produce aerosols naturally and have produced cooling in the past. Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, spewed so much sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that the planet cooled by 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.55 degrees Celsius) and stayed cool for more than two years.
Skeptics of the idea, however, say it’s one thing when a volcano erupts; imitating nature would be another thing entirely. While Pinatubo-like amounts of sulfur (roughly 20 million tons) pumped into the atmosphere could linger three to four years, cooling the planet within the first months, reversing sea ice melt, and possibly even promoting tree growth, the side effects are uncertain. A 2009 paper found that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could lead to drought in Africa and Asia and deplete the ozone layer, and it would not stop ocean acidification.
A miscalculation in the injections could be a costly mistake, ushering in a new ice age. And if scientists were to stop regular injections without cleaning up the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the rebound effect could be worse for crops, animals and ecosystems than if they had done nothing. [Could Space Mirrors Stop Global Warming?]
Beyond that, critics say, regular aerosol injections would change the sky’s color, ruin astronomy for optical telescopes on Earth, and remove the incentive for nations to clean up their own acts. And in a final act of irony, with less sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, solar panels would produce less power.
Despite these potential drawbacks, research continues. A group of Cambridge scientists recently published a study of the proposed options for getting the aerosols to the stratosphere. (The report favored using a large tethered balloon with a hose attached to a high-pressure pump.) A study in mid-2012 found that the sky would look no different post-geoengineering than it currently does in urban areas, which have higher levels of aerosols due to pollution. And many scientists have concluded that aerosol injection is the most effective, most timely and cheapest solution to warming that has been proposed thus far, costing about $50 billion per year.
However, until scientists know more about the potential side effects of geoengineering through tests (as opposed to computer models), it’s not likely to happen. A 2010 government report found only one field experiment related to aerosols and noted that the U.S. spent only about $2 million over two years investigating solar radiation management techniques.
The problem? Testing large-scale climate engineering techniques in the field requires large-scale tests in the field. In the words of climate change scientist Mike Hulme, writing in Progress in Physical Geography: “Research and deployment become one and the same.” To test the technology, it has to be put into effect – and the consequences of that are still largely unknown.
This story was provided by InnovationNewsDaily, a sister site to LiveScience. Follow InnovationNewsDaily on Twitter @News_Innovation, or on Facebook.
How is geoengineering any different from genetically modified food?
The creators and scientists behind both, neither know the long term consequences of either program, nor do they care. They have not informed the public, and both have been introduced and used long before their public introduction to the wider population. And the people are none the wiser.
Simple question: why is Greenland called Greenland if its always been covered with ice? Because it has not always been covered with ice. Why do you find animals in the Arctic flash frozen for thousands of years with tropical food in their stomachs? The climate and weather change over time and it has very little to do with humans. And there is little to nothing humans can do to stop it. But they sure can exacerbate it with their crazy ideas.
But I would like to see the government and scientists control a tornado, hurricane, earth quake, tsunami, thunder storm, lightning, volcano eruption, hail etc.
The United Nations passed a Weather Warfare Treaty in 1977? How is there a treaty against something that does not exist? So there already existed the capability to modify the weather and militarize it over thirty years ago? Please research Agenda 21 and the ramifications of this UN agenda.
This is taken from Article 1 of the treaty
Article I1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
This is taken from Article 2 of the treaty
It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in Article II of the Convention: earthquakes, tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.
Can you imagine the results from spraying your home with aerosol sprays like Lysol to air freshners for just an hour nonstop or maybe an entire day. What would be the consequences for your lungs, respiratory system, eyes and skin? Allergies, uncontrollable coughing, vomiting, itchy skin, red and ozzing eyes etc. Imagine doing this on a global scale. What would be the synergistic effects of this particulate matter dumped in the upper atmosphere?
Can we honestly trust what will actually be in the spray? This would be similar to all the very dangerous ingredients found in vaccines from aborted fetal tissue, arsenic, semian or monkey tissue etc. Most peple who take vaccines are totally unaware of these shocking ingredients.
I am sure none of this has anything to do with the off the chart cancer rates, alzheimers (heavy metals in the blood), autism etc. afflicting the population.
This level of scientific psychopathy unleashed on a global scale is beyond comprehension. Perhaps the closest thing is the respiratory illnesses and other maladies the people of NYC suffered from post-9/11 as a result of the building material pulverized into fine dust particles. Some said it was literally like breathing in liquid draino.
they already spraying ,its called chemtrails and its making one big mess,global warming is crap,we are meant to have sun,keep these jerks out of our sky.