5 Filters

The Dimming, Full Length Geoengineering (Chemtrails) Documentary. A MUST SEE HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION

Another late addition to the debate. Really more of an observation and you decide what it might infer.

We’ve had some pretty hot weather the last few weeks and dry until the start of the week. Then, loads of chemtrails/vapourtrails and the resulting haze for the next few days. This was followed by two days of intermittent rain.

My swimming pool started to go green so I did usual the water test. The ph was very low, despite being perfect a week earlier. That means the rain water was acidic enough to change the entire pool chemistry. Should rain be acidic if there is nada in the air other than air and water vapour?

3 Likes

I think you’re being partial…you won’t see the wood for the trees…any group of people capable of 9/11, capable of creating HIV, capable of all the duplicity we discuss are more than capable of experimenting on us because (or so they may maintain to those who “need-to-know” such), they are even more worried than the majority of the public are about climate change… my personal sources who were warning of the #chemtrail issue well before I are of the utmost integrity and quality…I reiterate that it is I who had pestered some of them to concentrate on incineration rather than #chemtrails… but the evidence seems strong…Why did the Chinese make such a public announcement…was this a poke from the oriental “gom-jabber”? What about the Lynmouth story? Have you ever seen skies like those pictured? Have you viewed the vids? Let’s admit it…if that’s “normal pollution” we had better make it abnormal!

"The Oxford Geoengineering Programme seeks to engage with society about the issues associated with geoengineering and conduct research into some of the proposed techniques. The programme does not advocate implementing geoengineering, but it does advocate conducting research into the social, ethical and technical aspects of geoengineering. This research must be conducted in a transparent and socially informed manner.

The University of Oxford is currently involved in four projects on geoengineering - two projects funded by the UK Research Councils and two projects funded by philanthropic foundations.

They are: the Greenhouse Gas Removal by Enhanced Weathering (GGREW) project in partnership with the University of Southampton, Cardiff University and the University of Cambridge; the Comparative Assessment and Region-Specific Optimisation of GGR project with Imperial College London, University College London, the University of East Anglia and the University of Cambridge; the Geoengineering Research Governance Project (GRGP) in partnership with the University of Calgary and the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies – Potsdam; and the Greenhouse Gas Removals Instruments and Policies (GRIP) project with the University of Manchester.

The University of Oxford has previously been involved in three major projects on geoengineering funded by the UK Research Councils.

They are: the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP) in partnership with the University of Leeds, Cardiff University, Lancaster University, University of Bristol, University of East Anglia, the Tyndall Centre and the UK Met Office; the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) in partnership with the University of Bristol and the University of Cambridge; and the Climate Geoengineering Governance (CGG), an Oxford-led project in partnership with the University of Sussex and University College London examined the governance and ethics of geoengineering." http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/index.html

"It’s becoming clear that we won’t cut carbon emissions soon enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. But there may be ways to cool the planet more quickly and buy us a little more time to shift away from fossil fuels.

They’re known collectively as geoengineering, and though it was once a scientific taboo, a growing number of researchers are running computer simulations and proposing small-scale outdoor experiments. Even some legislators have begun discussing what role these technologies could play (see “The growing case for geoengineering”).

But what is geoengineering exactly?

Traditionally, geoengineering has encompassed two very different things: sucking carbon dioxide out of the sky so the atmosphere will trap less heat, and reflecting more sunlight away from the planet so less heat is absorbed in the first place.

The first of these, known as “carbon removal” or “negative emissions technologies,” is something that scholars now largely agree we’ll need to do in order to avoid dangerous levels of warming (see “One man’s two-decade quest to suck greenhouse gas out of the sky”). Most no longer call it “geoengineering”—to avoid associating it with the second, more contentious branch, known as solar geoengineering.

This is a blanket term that includes ideas like setting up sun shields in space or dispersing microscopic particles in the air in various ways to make coastal clouds more reflective, dissipate heat-trapping cirrus clouds, or scatter sunlight in the stratosphere.

The word geoengineering suggests a planetary-scale technology. But some researchers have looked at the possibility of conducting it in localized ways as well, exploring various methods that might protect coral reefs, coastal redwoods, and ice sheets.

Where did the idea come from?

It’s not a particularly new idea. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee warned it might be necessary to increase the reflectivity of the Earth to offset rising greenhouse-gas emissions. The committee went so far as to suggest sprinkling reflective particles across the oceans. (It’s revealing that in this, the first ever presidential report on the threat of climate change, the idea of cutting emissions didn’t seem worth mentioning, as author Jeff Goodell notes in How to Cool the Planet.)*

But the best-known form of solar geoengineering involves spraying particles into the stratosphere, sometimes known as “stratospheric injection” or “stratospheric aerosol scattering.” (Sorry, we don’t come up with the names.) That’s in part because nature has already demonstrated it’s possible.

Most famously, the massive eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the summer of 1991 spewed some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky. By reflecting sunlight back into space, the particles in the stratosphere helped push global temperatures down about 0.5 °C over the next two years.

And while we don’t have precise data, huge volcanic eruptions in the distant past had similar effects. The explosion of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 was famously followed by the “Year Without a Summer” in 1816, a gloomy period that may have helped inspire the creation of two of literature’s most enduring horror creatures, vampires and Frankenstein’s monster.

Soviet climatologist Mikhail Budyko is generally credited as the first to suggest we could counteract climate change by mimicking this volcanic phenomenon. He raised the possibility of burning sulfur in the stratosphere in a 1974 book.

In the following decades, the concept occasionally popped up in research papers and at scientific conferences, but it didn’t gain much attention until the late summer of 2006, when Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize–winning atmospheric chemist, called for geoengineering research in an article in Climatic Change. That was particularly significant because Crutzen had won his Nobel for research on the dangers of the growing ozone hole, and one of the known effects of sulfur dioxide is ozone depletion."…

"How is geoengineering being researched?

In the years since Crutzen’s paper, more researchers have studied geoengineering, mainly using computer simulations or small lab experiments to explore whether it would really work, how it might be done, what sorts of particles could be used, and what environmental side effects it might produce.

The computer modeling consistently shows it would reduce global temperatures, sea-level rise, and certain other climate impacts. But some studies have found that high doses of certain particles might also damage the protective ozone layer, alter global precipitation patterns, and reduce crop growth in certain areas.

Others researchers have found that these risks can be reduced, if not eliminated, by using particles other than sulfur dioxide and by limiting the extent of geoengineering.

But no one would suggest we’ve arrived at the final answer on most of these questions. Researchers in the field believe we need to do a lot more modeling work to explore these issues in greater detail. And it’s also clear that simulations can only tell us so much, which is why some are proposing small outdoor experiments.

Has anybody conducted real-world geoengineering experiments?

In 2009, Russian scientists conducted what is believed the be the first outdoor geoengineering experiment. They mounted aerosol generators on a helicopter and car and sprayed particles as high as 200 meters (660 feet). The scientists claimed, in a paper published in Russian Meteorology and Hydrology, that the experiment had reduced the amount of sunlight that reached the surface. (It’s worth noting that Yuri Izrael, a climate skeptic and scientific advisor to Vladimir Putin, was the lead author of the study as well as the editor of the journal.)

One of the first attempts to conduct an experiment that was openly advertised in advance as geoengineering-related, known as the SPICE project, was ultimately scrapped. The idea was to pump particles up a pipe to a high-altitude balloon that would scatter them in the stratosphere. But the proposal prompted a public backlash, particularly after it emerged that some of the researchers had already applied for patents on the technology.* " https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/09/615/what-is-geoengineering-and-why-should-you-care-climate-change-harvard/

*Italics mine.

…and “D”…if it hasn’t been done yet we should be concerned that it might be soon shouldn’t we?

I just had a thought (no seriously), what an opportunity to “upgrade” the fleet Covid might have been (and my goodness if they knew the pandemic was on…)!

1 Like

Thanks G - and still thinking about this, and still sceptical! Partly as I’m less than convinced that what we are capable of putting up there is unlikely to have an effect greater than what we already put up there all the time - including SO2 and CO2 and NOx - all of which are acid forming and two of which are smog forming.

3 Likes

Thank god for The Long Descent! Coming, to a supermarket near you this year - in one of its many manifestations, anyway, over the next few decades: Assuring a reliable end to such insane schemes as geoengineering, by means of geophysical forces majeures completely beyond human control.

Weird, isn’t it, how so few of these uni-loony-technocrats’ ‘extracting sunbeams from cucumbers’ schemes mentions the wholly obvious atmospheric-carbon-reduction techniques, already proven copiously to work over many millennia: climax forests, and tall-grass prairies; both with serengetiesworth of animal populations engaged in their processes, to make them even more effective. But not patentable nor easily commercial-profit capable. So - no use, of course. Homo Commercialis can always better mere Nature…

Also, notice how you NEVER hear, in these discussions about carbon-removal, that awkward paleontological fact: That before the advent of Homo Industrialis and his sudden splurge of crustally-sequestered-hydrocarbon mine-and-burn, begun a couple of centuries back, atmospheric carbon-dioxide had been on a millions-of-years DOWNWARD trend, approaching the point where, if continued, the level of CO2 would, shortly in the future, have dropped to the place where photosynthesis seizes up for lack of CO2 in the air - and life on Earth stops…

Looks as if the Industrial Revolution happened just in the nick of time, dunnit? Makes you wonder whether Mam Gaia might just have had a hand in that, as she manages so many of the processes which maintain planetary homeostasis over long periods; and restores it when it’s perturbed… :scream: :rofl:

2 Likes

I’m no rabid convert but I have found that every-time I think I’m making progress with my own immediate environment/personal health (and there have been many threats), some b**ger invents (or has already invented), a better idiot! Let’s look at some more (circumstantial in this regard), evidence of criminality, this time from from the Vietnam War, quote; “Nearly 60 years following the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War—the deadliest use of chemical warfare in history—the devastating after effects of the toxin remain lethal, demanding attention both in Vietnam and at home in America. The People vs. Agent Orange closely follows two activists as they take on the chemical industry, and demand accountability for the pernicious legacy caused by the use of this poisonous herbicide.” Go to: https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/the-people-vs-agent-orange/

Operation Popeye

"WASHINGTON, July 2—The United States has been secretly seeding clouds over North Vietnam, Laos and South Vietnam to increase and control the rainfall for military purposes.

Government sources, both civilian and military, said during an extensive series of interviews that the Air Force cloud seeding program has been aimed most recently at hindering movement of North Vietnamese troops and equipment and suppressing enemy anti-aircraft missile fire.

The disclosure confirmed growing speculation in Congressional and scientific circles about the use of weather modification in Southeast Asia. Despite years of experiments with rain-making in the United States and elsewhere, scientists are not sure they understand its long‐term effect on the ecology of a region.*" https://www.nytimes.com/1972/07/03/archives/rainmaking-is-used-as-weapon-by-us-cloudseeding-in-indochina-is.html

*Italics mine.

Agent Orange

The Technology Review claim that, quote; “In 2009, Russian scientists conducted what is believed the be [the first outdoor geoengineering experiment]”
I’m sceptical about that we’ve at least two documented cases of weather modification “geoengineering” from decades ago (see “Lynmouth” post).

Let’s not forget what Glyphosate is doing now either, go to: https://forum.5filters.info/t/preharvest-use-of-glyphosate-poisons-kids-food/2795, https://forum.5filters.info/t/bayers-decision-to-suspend-work-with-fleishmanhillard/1147, German cabinet approves legislation to ban glyphosate from 2024 & use the 5Filters search facility to find more on this site.

1 Like

It’s almost as if “Bioremediation” is a dirty word!

I must mention what I think the most bizarre disjunction in recent history of emissions reductions. We have in our world the most astonishingly efficient device for removing CO2 from the air, called a “Tree”. It spreads its scavenging apparatus in three dimensions up to a height of 80 metres and grows almost anywhere it’s possible. One of the devices some plants use is call the “C4 pathway” of photosynthesis, where CO2 can be sucked out of the air very actively so that the pores in the leaves can allow a minimum of water to escape.

In Iceland this year, it was announced with huge fanfare that a special “plant” was operating using fans to suck in air and filter out the CO2, which was then compressed and pumped into underground reservoirs in the volcanic rock. Costing millions of dollars this plant was able to capture as much CO2 as would trees covering the same area, though not convert it into something as useful and permanent as WOOD.

In a similar insane vein - I read the CEO of Shell’s prognostications on ways of reducing emissions, and he suggested that CO2 could be converted into Methane. Of course this is true, but doing so would use about 20% more energy than was produced when the Methane is burnt and produces CO2. He also had a great-sounding scheme to store unwanted CO2 in giant pig-shaped blimps moored over cities where they could reflect the sun’s heat and reduce local warming. As CO2 is slightly heavier than air they would need to be partly filled with Hydrogen, produced by solar powered hydrolysers on the ground beneath, though as Hydrogen passes through vinyl membranes quite rapidly the flying pigs would need topping up with Hydrogen produced from COAL during the night or in cloudy weather. Scientists are working on solutions to the problem of shading, where accumulations of pigs prevent solar plants from functioning.
I don’t think Mam Gaia would come up with something this silly, though she did get away with Homo sapiens…

4 Likes

Don’t forget the incineration of plastics ALSO produces dioxins (the main carcinogenic component of Agent Orange), they have a “half-life” (verbatim), comparable to that of plutonium too (see PBS documentary)! Re: Oxford Uni research…why don’t they just say; “market research/public-relations exercise” are they ashamed to admit that’s what it is?

1 Like

BTW, forgot to note that humans breathe out CO2 constantly, something often overlooked. In areas where there are concentrations of these animals it has been observed that plants grow much faster… Scientists are examining the possibility that the wearing of masks may have had a deleterious effect on office plants, but the confounding factor of “working from home” has complicated their calculations. It is thought also that even though the CO2 in the mask is partly breathed in again, it must finally find its way through the porous material, unless the mask wearer passes out.
Aye tis the season for going looney.

3 Likes

Did you see the story about Graphene-Oxide in the masks?

I’ve just been Tweeted this but haven’t perused the site so caveat emptor: https://weathermodificationhistory.com/

Nb. I’ve had to make my position clear again; “I worked (with others), for decades to prove that mankind was causing #climatechange by its use of fossil fuels and” the consequent “production of #CO2…what would you suggest we use #nuclearpower? No…we need sustainable systems #biodiversityistheengineofsustainability…not hard “techno-fixes”” https://twitter.com/Williamtheb/status/1528711278889508866

1 Like

I had to make this a separate post… re: crypto-currencies #Bitcoin #TheEmperorsNewClothes Mr. Keiser “the cat crypto-ed in crapped and crypto-ed out again!” “I’m sorry old-chap but I do believe your “money” is on fire!

Bitcoin2

Just posted by AmericanMama
https://twitter.com/ZamericaA:

FTcHJx6WQAAQXdx

FTcHJx8X0AEUDlG?

1 Like

I’m sceptical also, but can see how the mechanism could be put into place with few people in the know.

Time Of The Wolf is astonishingly bleak . . . and yet probably one of Hanekes more optimistic films. Compared to Seventh Continent, for example. I don’t know if Happy Ending will prove to be his last film but that’s almost comedic in the conventional sense. Great auteur.

2 Likes

These are bog standard clouds surely?

1 Like

Hence the ? They’re unusual…at least I think so…

3 Likes

I’m not sure about those clouds - a search for images of makerel sky returns images resembling similar - but those don’t look like the type of makerel sky we used to see…when I wer a lad! True of most of the abominable skies we see nowadays - they’re a new thing - simple anecdotals true, but as a dreamy child/youth/adult I’ve always lost myself in the sky - I remember as a kid being out with mates, and if anybody spotted a plane putting out a contrail we’d all stop and marvel at it, because they were rare events, you’d see plenty planes, but seldom would you see contrails…and for certain, any contrail would be completely gone in seconds - they never hung about in the sky for hours…expanding…meshing with dozens other contrails to form a milky film across the entire sky. It absolutely staggers me that people older than 30 can’t see that something is going on up there.

It has been speculated that such skies as seen above are ‘HAARP skies’ - basically the principle is akin to sending pulses through sand to form patterns - different frequencies generate different patterns - - something to do with the particulates spewed into the atmosphere and then zapped with the HAARP installations…I dunno what to think - but I do think that it’s just another front on the all-out assault on people.

4 Likes

“It has been speculated that such skies as seen above are ‘HAARP skies’” The notion that those responsible for both HAARP and chemtrails would not at least consider combining the two doesn’t fly as far as I’m concerned.

1 Like

Well, yes, but still clouds in the conventional sense? I haven’t read it but this is apparently a good read, he used to write for The Idler I think.

1 Like

Could these guys be a CIA front…?

1 Like

#chemtrails will our children ever know a normal blue? Regardless of what u call them, they are not normal, and don’t disappear like they used to. Some do, yes, but most don’t”

FTvp5KlWQAAs-oj

FTvp5KnX0AAn-QQ

FTvp5RMWAAAgt6K

FTvp5RNXsAAU1gk

“They’re definitely forming into fake clouds. Not seen one cloud that looks normal today. Look lower down on the picture as well”

FTvvUbPWUAEL0Kc

FTvvUbQX0AEnVWD

FTvvUbQXsAACumU

“Some issues are complex and require a thorough analysis of the data. Not this. I grew up in a world with no geo-engineering and in recent years the skies look like a game of noughts and crosses. It’s observable. I never once saw a sky like this in the first 30 years of my life”

All posted to Twitter today.

1 Like