ConCen
History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - Printable Version

+- ConCen (https://concen.org/oldforum)
+-- Forum: Main (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Science, Technology & Discoveries (https://concen.org/oldforum/forum-22.html)
+--- Thread: History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare (/thread-1901.html)



History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - blove8. - 07-26-2009

History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3gKa0z7rjM

For Reference:
That's Impossible
Episode: Weather Warfare
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=det...pisodeId=464914

Operation Popeye (Project Popeye/Motorpool/Intermediary-Compatriot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

Weather Warfare
Electromagnetic Weapons - The Future Has Arrived
http://weatherwars.blogspot.com/


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - plasticfan - 07-26-2009

thanks bl8 - full episode just been uploaded....
http://tracker.conspiracycentral.net/torre...ils.php?id=8574


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - mastermg - 07-26-2009

Awesome find blov8 thanks


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - mexika - 07-26-2009

Yes, thank you. People will now see that something is going on, has gone on, and this will deliver first hand source....


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - JazzRoc - 07-28-2009

Why?

Would you consider it reasonable to receive a program on History from a Science channel?

Willian Thomas was there because the History Channel will accept virtually anyone (though probably not YOU) - and no other program would accept him at all.

He has added nothing in the last decade to his original set of baseless accusations.


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - blove8. - 07-28-2009

The Atlantic: Re-Engineering the Earth
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/climate-engineering


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - JazzRoc - 07-29-2009

RE Re-Engineering the Earth

If geo-engineers have a natural enemy, it is the sun. Their first impulse is to try to block it out. Stephen Salter, a Scottish engineer, has mocked up a strategy that would cool the planet by painting the skies above the oceans white. Salter's designs based on an idea developed by John Latham at the National Center for Atmospheric Research call for a permanent fleet of up to 1,500 ships dragging propellers that churn up seawater and spray it high enough for the wind to carry it into the clouds. The spray would add moisture to the clouds and make them whiter and fluffier, and therefore better at bouncing sunlight back harmlessly into space. Salter, who has investigated the technical feasibility of this idea minutely (down to the question of whether ship owners would mind affixing spray nozzles to their hulls with magnets), estimates the cost to build the first 300 ships enough to turn back the climatological clock to James Watt's era to be $600 million, plus another $100 million per year to keep the project going.

It's a good idea, a cheap idea, a reversible idea. It has other benefits, such as calming the oceans, providing weather stations, providing emergency rescue facilities.

[Image: Salter.jpg]

Of all the ideas circulating for blocking solar heat, however, sulfur-aerosol injection the Blade Runner scenario may actually be the least mad. And it provides an illustrative example of the trade-offs that all geo-engineering projects of its scale must confront. The approach is already known to work. When Mount Tambora erupted in Indonesia in 1815 and spewed sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, farmers in New England recorded a summer so chilly that their fields frosted over in July. The Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991 cooled global temperatures by about half a degree Celsius for the next few years. A sulfur-aerosol project could produce a Pinatubo of sulfur dioxide every four years. The aerosol plan is also cheap, so cheap that it completely overturns conventional analysis of how to mitigate climate change. Thomas C. Schelling, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize in economics, has pointed out how difficult it is to get vast international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol to stick. But a geo-engineering strategy like sulfur aerosol changes everything, he says. Suddenly, instead of a situation where any one country can foil efforts to curb global warming, any one country can curb global warming all on its own. Pumping sulfur into the atmosphere is a lot easier than trying to orchestrate the actions of 200 countries or, for that matter, 7 billion individuals each of whom has strong incentives to cheat. But, as with nearly every geo-engineering plan, there are substantial drawbacks to the gas-the-planet strategy. Opponents say it might produce acid rain and decimate plant and fish life.

It is cheap, would work, and then decimate the seas non-reversibly. It's CRAP. This really could kill us all. It featured in several of the past mass-extinction events in Earth's history.

In 1977, the physicist Freeman Dyson published the first of a series of articles about how plants affect the planet's carbon-dioxide concentrations. Every summer, plants absorb about a tenth of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the fall, when they stop growing or shed their leaves, they release most of it back into the air. Dyson proposed creating forests of carbon-eating trees, engineered to suck carbon more ravenously from the air, and to keep it tied up in thick roots that would decay into topsoil, trapping the carbon. He now estimates that by annually increasing topsoil by just a tenth of an inch over land that supports vegetation, we could offset all human carbon emissions.

It's a good idea, but monocultures are unsupported by their surrounding ecology, and will fail with disastrous consequences. So will this.

David Keith, an energy-technology expert at the University of Calgary, hopes to capture carbon from the air. He proposes erecting vented building-size structures that contain grids coated with a chemical solution. As air flows through the vents, the solution would bind to the carbon-dioxide molecules and trap them. Capturing carbon in these structures, which might resemble industrial cooling towers, would allow us to manage emissions cheaply from central sites, rather than from the dispersed places from which they were emitted, such as cars, planes, and home furnaces. The grids would have to be scrubbed chemically to separate the carbon. If chemists could engineer ways to wash the carbon out that didn't require too much energy, Keith imagines that these structures could effectively make our carbon-spewing conveniences carbon-neutral.

Yeah, that sounds nice - a real Blade Runner idea. Why have forests when you can have cooling towers?

The question then becomes where to put all that carbon once it's captured. Keith has investigated one elegant solution: put it back underground, where much of it originated as oil. The technology for stashing carbon beneath the earth already exists, and is routinely exploited by oil-well drillers. When oil wells stop producing in large quantities, drillers inject carbon dioxide into the ground to push out the last drops. If they inject it into the right kind of geological structure, and deep enough below the surface, it stays there.

It might work - as long as it's windmill and solar-cell driven. Likely? Flying pig?

We might also store carbon dioxide in the oceans. Already, on the oceans' surface, clouds of blooming plankton ingest amounts of carbon dioxide comparable to those taken in by trees. Climos, a geo-engineering start-up based in San Francisco, is trying to cultivate ever-bigger plankton blooms that would suck in huge supplies of carbon. When the plankton died, the carbon would end up on the sea floor. Climos began with the observation that plankton bloom in the ocean only when they have adequate supplies of iron. In the 1980s, the oceanographer John Martin hypothesized that large amounts of oceanic iron may have produced giant plankton blooms in the past, and therefore chilled the atmosphere by removing carbon dioxide. Spread powdered iron over the surface of the ocean, and in very little time a massive bloom of plankton will grow, he predicted. Give me half a tanker of iron, Martin said, and I'll give you the next Ice Age. If Martin's ideas are sound, Climos could in effect become the world's gardener by seeding Antarctic waters with iron and creating vast, rapidly growing offshore forests to replace the ones that no longer exist on land. But this solution, too, could have terrible downsides. Alan Robock, an environmental scientist at Rutgers, notes that when the dead algae degrades, it could emit methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

Phytoplankton gets eaten by Zooplankton. The methane would be oxidised to CO2. It is a GREAT IDEA, and could be the start of a renewable fishing industry.

Just a decade ago, every one of these schemes was considered outlandish. Some still seem that way. But what sounded crankish only 10 years ago is now becoming mainstream thinking. Although using geo-engineering to combat climate change was first considered (and dismissed) by President Johnson's administration, sustained political interest began on the business-friendly right, which remains excited about any solution that doesn't get in the way of the oil companies. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank historically inimical to emission-reduction measures, has sponsored panels on the sulfur-aerosol plan. By now, even staunch environmentalists and eminent scientists with long records of climate-change concern are discussing geo-engineering openly. Paul Crutzen, who earned his Nobel Prize by figuring out how human activity punched a hole in the ozone layer, has for years urged research on sulfur-aerosol solutions, bringing vast credibility to geo-engineering as a result.

An evil development.

With that growing acceptance, however, come some grave dangers.

Sho' nuff. Including YOU, it seems.

Perhaps we could start with a few puffs of sulfur in the atmosphere to buy time, then forests of plankton in the ocean, and then genetically engineered carbon-hungry trees. What isn't an option, Victor says, is refusing to fund more research, in the hope that geo-engineering won't be needed.

I find it interesting that the Salter solution (cheapest, best, reversible) seems to be already off the table.

Perhaps a Prius doesn't sound so bad, when a zeppelin is the alternative.

And you call THAT journalism?

These people need to talk to biologists and ecologists. And to STFU until they've done so.



History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - hilly7 - 07-31-2009

Good find. Thank You


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - JazzRoc - 08-19-2009

Quote:Good find. Thank You
In a pig's ear.



History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - drew hempel - 09-17-2009

Nice breakdown JazzRoc! Yeah it's real creepy that sulfur -- acid rain -- is being promoted as the solution to Global Warming -- how convenient. Isn't acid rain already a byproduct of carbon dioxide production from coal plants? So the answer would be more coal plants but with better carbon capturing devices....

Yeah here's the details why sulfur aerosols wouldn't work anyways plus be evil -- a double indemnity!

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/960425SM.html


History Channel Documentary Validates Chemtrails and Weather Warfare - JazzRoc - 09-26-2009

Quote:Isn't acid rain already a byproduct of carbon dioxide production from coal plants?
It needn't be.

The SO2 can be used to turn CHALK into GYPSUM (Ca2SO4) and keep us all in wall-boarding for ever.

Of course, the byproduct is CO2!

But my standpoint is that CO2 has hidden sinks as yet undiscovered. The evidence? Easy. CO2 in the atmosphere has NEVER led a warming period.

Don't draw the conclusion from that that I'm a GW denier - I'm not. Check out my "Global Dimming" post in my blog.

It's a long read...