The Central Intelligence Agency is joining with the National Air and Space Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to spend $630,000 studying a subset of potential global warming solutions. Geo-engineering, as the solutions are broadly termed, is the science of manipulating the environment in a way that mitigates, halts, or otherwise disrupts global warming. It makes sense that three science agencies are examining this, but why the CIA?
Climate change, it turns out, is one of the major threats to national security, as specified in the 2013 "Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community." Climate change threatens food and water supplies, which in turn, could lead to all sorts of geopolitical conflicts. The intelligence community report singles out droughts in the "Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, Niger, Amazon, and Mekong river basins," and notes that increased populations will put intense pressure on (already scare) resources. This doesn't speak to a direct, pressing security threat, but instead thousands of future problems.
Geoengineering, as a way of halting or delaying climate change, is a kind of mad science. One method involves putting sulfur particles into the air to reflect more sunlight, slowing the heating of Earth in much the same way that a gigantic volcanic eruption once cooled the world. Thing is, sulfur particles in the atmosphere also cause acid rain. Directly altering the climate to counteract another human-caused climate alteration is at the very least hubristic. Studying the implications of such geoengineering attempts is the first step toward actually attempting geoengineering, but it is also an important move if geoengineering is to be done responsibly. And it's a far better move than watching rogue individuals attempt scientifically unsound geoeningeering efforts on their own.
Of course, instead of looking to geoengineering, America could always try sensible political action instead. Then again, given international political intransigence on the issue, investing half a million dollars in mad science might be a bargain.
geoengineering allready goes on. look at haarp. cloud seeding, and all kinds of weather modifiers allready exist, pollution drives a lot of it too.
I am reminded of the movie "The Core".
maybe it's a safer way to deforestate areas than using agent orange a la Vietnam
If you think arbitrarily taxing and limiting emissions of carbon dioxide--a trace gas in our atmosphere essential to all life--is "sensible political action" you just might be a climate alarmist.
Ever wonder what happens to the economy, living standards, and poverty level of states that drastically increase the price of energy production because they taxed CO2? Watch what happens in California and British Columbia where they now tax CO2 and compare to their neighbors over the coming years. Here's a simple truth: taxing CO2 in CA and BC will have zero measurable effect on global CO2, but it will have a measurable negative impact on their economies.
Just for fun, gas up at Costco in Bellingham, Washington near the Canadian border and count the number of cars that fill up their tanks as well as several 5 gallon gas containers. Then notice that all of them are from British Columbia. Bring snacks because you'll be sitting in line for 15 minutes or so. That's what a carbon tax does.
Saying all geoengineering is intended to mitigate global warming is absurd. There are many political, economic, and military reasons to manipulate earth's weather/climate on a planetary scale. The most probable applications of these technologies is unfortunately as a covert weapon of war. Everyone knows that's the CIA's department, and most people know that weather warfare has been a reality since at least Operation Popeye during the Vietnam War. "Geoengineering" is a PR smokescreen for the reality of modern climate warfare and CO2 is a scapegoat blamed for the ravages of weather warfare. See for yourself: study the sky where you live.
It behooves us to find geoengineering approaches at this point. If there are certain turnover points for the climate such as CO2 and methane release from the permafrost than it would make sense for us to know how to respond to drastic climate change ahead of time. We already know it may be too late to change to political landscape from burgeoning 1st world nations such as India and China who's carbon creation will remain largely unchecked. It only makes sense for us to understand the science.
The natural American Indians had a good idea, "Live within the environment and only take what you need and not more."
Say, lets do that!
The Solution to Global Warming / Desertification:
Allan Savory & the Savory Institute - - - Healing ecosystems, saving the world.
Check out his TED talk, or just google "Allan Savory". !!
Two reasons the CIA would be interested.
1. Our competitors are working on manipulation of the weather for various reasons.
2. Our enemies can be controlled by weather manipulations.
There is a very very inexpensive, and easily reversible way to immediately cool down the Earth: just add a little (more) sun dimming pollution to the air. Our short-lived sun dimming pollution already cools down the Earth about 1C.
"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
BTW, there is a new clean energy emerging onto the market this year that will make energy "too cheap to meter" (per Forbes.com). It uses nickel and hydrogen, with no nuclear materials going in or coming out. Here is a primer:
Check out this third-party verification of a LENR reactor that will soon hit the market: arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
"Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones." (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).
This phenomenon (LENR) has been confirmed in hundreds of published scientific papers: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJtallyofcol.pdf
"Over 2 decades with over 100 experiments worldwide indicate LENR is real, much greater than chemical..." --Dennis M. Bushnell, Chief Scientist, NASA Langley Research Center
"Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry." --Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA
Just 2 observations that have nothing really to do with this topic. You all seem to have covered everything anyways.
1) @ Wonder,
All 7.099 billion of us? You want us all to spread out of the cities and live off the land huh? Brilliant!
2) @ poopsci,
That would be, "National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration". Unless there's another NASA I don't know about. Brilliant!
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
No, just you, rofl!
And my comment refers to the soucrce of the problem, 'humanity'.
I understand that our CO2 emissions along with all of the other chemicals we are putting into the air change our climate but I honestly wonder if there is another source for some of the increased temperatures. Things such as the amount of deforestation, and the square miles of asphault that we have placed on the earths surface someone should do a study to see how much more heat a square mile of asphault and or concrete absorb and radiate compared to a square mile of forest , field, or even rock and sand. I personally think it would add up quite a bit.
My first instinct after reading your reply was to write this:
"Why don't you start by killing yourself then... roflmfao!"
But by displaying the same type of superfluous comment as you really gets us no where. So disregard that and instead I will ask you a second question: What would you have us do about humanity? Because it seems to me we are here. All 7 billion of us. And by the look of things, we're headed for 11 billion by 2050. The fact is that the earth was never meant to sustain such a huge human population. So barring extermination, it seems to me that nature cannot handle us all regardless of how much we would like to think so, or how well we use the available resources. You just can't feed 5 people with one tomato and expect them all to be satisfied. Unless... you grow a HUGE tomato. And in that case, you need technology. Technology got us here, and technology will sustain us.
It's nice though, to think we could go back to nature and take only what we need and live off the land. But that society doesn't exist anymore. It went the way of the covered wagon because it simply was not efficient enough to support the growing needs of a growing population. Neither does much of anything from those simpler times. Oh and uh, by the way, I already have a house out on the farm. It's nice to get away there from time to time when I can. Awesome view of the milky way out there. You'd like it.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
The native American North American Indian had the belief system of living with the land and it worked and it was their own observation of the new incoming western man always takes from life in excess.
Now go back to the really good old days of Neanderthal man and they existed for 100k years more or less do the same old things, using the same carrying tool box, living off the land, environment and it worked.
Somewhere from an outside source, something created modern man with a little bit brain size than neanderthal with better communication tools and an never ending growing tools box and never satisfied desire to acquire more stuff. Many of these new humans also were taught they were created for the Gods and serving and gathering for them was a good thing.
So there you go, a new hybrid human from neanderthal man with the natural belief of living with the environment that carried over to some of the modern human man and the greatly over abundant overly influence modern man that dominates all of planet Earth to populate the Earth and gather stuff. The later will continue all 7 plus billion and will push the limits of Earth, until the tipping scale happens and the population will drop one day to 1%.
The only thing that will prevent this doom will be the outside source that made modern man and dominate the situation and takes control of planet Earth. Of course I really can not if we may or many not enjoy the outcome for the majority. In this last situation Earths population might again for outside source could drop to 1% anyways.
Recent history of the native American man and ancient Neanderthal had the right way of living life and it worked for all other life in harmony with planet Earth. Sadly this is not the dominate way of life of Earth and as things continue we are just doomed, unless modern man overcomes his greed gathering stuff nature and learn completely 100% how to manage his environment. This goal will be proven possible only if we leave planet Earth and establish ourselves in space and beyond, only time will tell. We might save ourselves modern man, but its highly unlikely. Take care. ;)
It worked for them because they were few. It will not work for us. As for what's in store for us, only time will tell. But in NO WAY can the Earth support such a huge population within natural means. Technology must supplement nature.
Just for arguments sake, let's assume all mankind suddenly decided to live as the American Indians and the Neanderthals; let's say we decided to do exactly as the environmentalists dictate: You assure the death of billions just to satisfy the desire for a natural world for a few. How is this fundamentally good? Should we not strive for the survival of as many of us as we can? Should not our goal be to advance technologically and spread to the planets and stars? We may or may not make it, I agree with you there. But to just say we SHOULD live like the ancients, and we SHOULD save our planet ignores billions of lives.
If you are for the death of billions than fine, there is no argument. But if you are like me, and care for the survival and advancement of the human race as a whole, then there is only one way. And that's through the use of technology.
To live like the American Indians or the Neanderthals may mean harmony with nature, but it also means stagnation as a race. Without progress your utopian world would not last very long. And you can't make it to the stars in a wooden canoe.
"Highly unlikely"? That's an extremely pessimistic view. An assumption based on what?
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
You want an realistic answer for today's problems with today's population.
Deal with limited resources on planet Earth and pollutions problems. On a macro scale of the whole Earth this will never happen. Perhaps on a micro scale, it maybe possible if we create a space station and or settle on other planets and moon, there by forcing us to deal with limited resources and managing our pollutions. This space venture must end being a 100% self sufficient to be a positive reflection for humanity and the long run.
I point out that the timing and specifics of climate change mirror the program of doping up the atmosphere with weather control chemicals, what has come to be called “chemtrails” and I am attacked and mocked and “informed” that it's not possible to change the climate. It's mentioned that the CIA is supposedly trying to stop climate change with programs at least as large as chemtrails and suddenly, there is discussion and those who treat me like dirt stay away. Just like comments of mine are regularly met with replies saying they were too long so the respondent didn't read them, but othes with comments at least as long are not treated that way.
Fossil fuels are not the cause of climate change, it's chemtrails. Chemtrails started around 1950, when jets began being used widely. That's when the number of tornadoes per year stopped being a roughly constant 180 and started exploding until, now, there are about 1200 to1300 per year. Around 1950 is also when the next to last newly developed cloud species, the cirrus intortus, was recognized. Many recognize 1997 as the year chemtrails started, because that's when hundreds at a time started to be seen in the sky. But, in fact, in 1997, the air became so saturated with weather control chemicals that any new contributions simply precipitated out. Also, since 1997 is when 90% of the dramatic signs of climate change, from the worst hurricane season to record to the rapid disappearance of glaciers to the warmest year on record occurred. Since 1997 is also when the newest previously unknown new cloud species developed, the undulatus asperatus. A century's worth of climate change in only about 15 years! And yet, the amount of carbon dioxide has only increased marginally since before 1997. The increase in carbon dioxide in the air is too small to justify all this change! But in 1997, the air became saturated with weather control chemicals, which is why the atmosphere as a whole has changed so drastically and swiftly!
But there is a Liberal agenda to put pressure on factories to make them pay bribes to operate. There is a potentially huge market in “carbon credits”, also. And there is an initiative to put up things like wind farms and solar collection stations which will damage the environment. Windmills remove energy from the air, causing it not to move as fast. But wind moves topsoil, it distributes seeds, it makes it easier for birds to fly and it evens out temperatures. Solar collection stations, with their heat trapping mirrors, will prevent cloud formation, warm up overhanging dust and create a massive temperature differential between air and ground.
The realistic resolution is that for now, we must press forward. Even if the entire United states decided to go green, china, Russia, eastern Europe, and most of the developing world will soon overcome any earth saving efforts we make. You're just never going to get the whole world on one page. So let's just press forward with technology and get something going on the moon, mars, asteroids. And I don't mean just colonies. I mean gathering resources too. Mining and drilling and smashing and bashing and building. lol.
I don't mean destroy the earth in the process. But the Earth is resilient. It's been through volcanic eras that make our carbon and CO2 problem look like a fart in the wind. And it's been through ice ages and little ice ages and many warming periods. It's lost numbers of species and gone through extinctions and still, it's here. Healthy and whole. So we do minor things to keep it from running off it's tracks, but we go full bore with the tech to get us off the planet. That is how the human race advances and survives. Not by playing God with the Earth.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
And..... when we are safely out in space and self sufficient, we can cure the earth of all the damage we done to it. Especially when we will know a lot more what to do and how to do it.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
I notice that there's no mention of the MANY other rivers and waterways in Asia and India that are of natural critical concern year in and out. This research is normal, and was being monitored at least to some degree since WWII; and throughout CIA's entire lifetime so far. Areas that function always at the edge of disaster-with common mass casualty-are naturally near very high population centers, and where the spooks ply their trade.
Case in point: China, and the move to populate their new cities. The way it's going to shock-affect the world in total will only be allayed by any degree of accurate projection we can gain. Everything is important.
as Lisa replied I'm in shock that a stay at home mom can profit $4134 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you read this web site Go to site and open Home for details
uptil I looked at the paycheck ov $8691, I accept that my cousin was like they say truley bringing home money parttime at their laptop.. there uncle started doing this for under nine months and by now cleared the debts on their home and got a gorgeous Cadillac. go to, ...........zee44.com