Chemtrails in Jet Fuel: Government Document Supports Adding Aerosols to Fuel

Excerpts from the 2008 Document:

INNOVATION, UNIVERSITIES & SKILLS COMMITTEE
ENGINEERING INQUIRY
(GEOENGINEERING CASE STUDY)
Memoranda of Evidence

Includes a plan to put sub-microscopic  particles in aviation fuel for aircraft release into the stratosphere.  (Chemtrails)

Note: When you follow the money the geoengineers are too wiling to point out that the aluminum aerosols are the least expensive method.  David Kieth used this carrot at the 2010 AAAS meeting forum. In fact , this document appears to be the model for his presentation at that meeting.

Document Source      Backup Source

4.i.b. Stratospheric aerosols
This technique aims to cool the Earth’s troposphere and surface by increasing the backscattering of radiation in the stratosphere (which increases planetary albedo)

19 Angel, R ., 2006, Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1), using airborne sub-microscopic particles such as sulphate, metals, dielectrics, resonant scatterers or dust [A12]. These aerosol particles would be created by releasing aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. This could be done by: releasing precursors at the Earth’s surface and allowing them to be carried into the stratosphere; firing them into the stratosphere from the Earth’s surface; or delivering them into the stratosphere using high-altitude balloons or aircraft [B2] (possibly by addition to aviation fuel, which could reduce the cost of delivery [Q15]). Injection could either take place in the tropics (with the aim of obtaining global coverage) or in the Arctic (with the aim of reducing warming in this region, which is particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic climate change).

c4.2 The process can be easily be seen on satellite photographs, where the exhausts plumes of commercial ships, containing particles of black carbon and sulphur dioxide, leave long trails of artificially created clouds, similar to aviation contrails, behind them, where weather conditions are suitable.

——————————————————————–

11. So main candidates include:

1)  creating stratospheric clouds – using precursor injection to generate aerosols;
2)  creating contrails – using an additive to aircraft fuel;
3)  brightening of marine clouds over the North Sea to cool the surface water entering the Arctic Ocean.
——————————————————————–

15. Concerning the main three candidates, the creation of stratospheric aerosol clouds (to simulate the global cooling effect over several years of a large volcanic eruption such as that of Mount Pinatubo) has the greatest backing among the geoengineering community, and should be a top priority for immediate experimental trials. A seminal paper on this subject by Ken Caldeira et al. [2] is included in the recent Royal Society Phil Trans special issue on geoengineering. The scientific aspects are well considered, and much modelling has been done. However no experimental work has been done (e.g. on obtaining an ideal droplet size), and this is needed as a matter of extreme urgency.

16. The creation of contrails can be regarded as simply reversing what has been done by removal of certain constituents (“impurities”) of aviation fuel in order to reduce atmospheric pollution. For example, sulphur compounds could be reintroduced into the fuel tanks of fighter aircraft, which would produce a contrail diffusing to a haze. This would have a known net cooling effect (significantly greater for daytime flights).  This technique could supplement the abovementioned solar radiation management from aerosol clouds in the stratosphere.

——————————————————————–

These aerosol particles would be created by releasing aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. This could be done by: releasing precursors at the Earth’s surface and allowing them to be carried into the stratosphere; firing them into the stratosphere from the Earth’s surface; or delivering them into the stratosphere using high-altitude balloons or aircraft [B2] (possibly by addition to aviation fuel, which could reduce the cost of delivery [Q15]). Injection could either take place in the tropics (with the aim of obtaining global coverage) or in the Arctic (with the aim of reducing warming in this region, which is particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic climate change).
——————————————————————–

Two proposals involving space shades/mirrors are:

Reflective mesh — A superfine reflective mesh of aluminium threads ~25 nanometres thick could be positioned between the Earth and the Sun to reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth (it has been estimated that a 1% reduction in solar radiation would require ~1.5 million km2 of ‘mesh’ mirrors).

Orbital ‘sunshades’19 — Trillions of thin, almost transparent disks ~50 centimetres in diameter could be launched from Earth to near the L1 Lagrange point to shade the Earth. It has been calculated that this scheme would reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth by ~1.8%. The proponent of the scheme estimates that it could feasibly be developed and deployed within about 25 years, at a cost of several trillion U.S. dollars19.

A number of studies have explored the effectiveness and impacts of schemes that aim to alter the radiation balance of the Earth. In particular, climate models have been used to explore the effects of ‘dimming’ the Sun [A10, AC1], which gives an indication of the effects of schemes that would reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface (such as space shades or stratospheric aerosols). These experiments confirm that it would, in theory, be possible to modify the Earth’s radiation balance to offset completely the effects of increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations on global annual average temperature13. However, even if this were possible in practice, these schemes could still be associated with significant climate changes because: (a) the temporal and spatial distributions of the forcing effects of greenhouse gases on climate differ from those of sunlight; and (b) elevated CO2 has effects on the climate system that are not reduced by the geo-engineering schemes (such as increasing the water-use efficiency of terrestrial plants). Some modelling work indicates that the climatic changes associated with the schemes would be small (relative to the unperturbed world)13 [C21, Q16], but other studies have found more significant changes, including decreases in precipitation over vegetated land surfaces (particularly in the tropics), a decrease in the meridional temperature gradient, a
12 Greenhouse gases increase atmospheric and surface temperatures by decreasing the amount of outgoing long-wave radiation that leaves the atmosphere.
13 Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K., 2000, Geoengineering Earth’s Radiation Balance to Mitigate CO2-Induced Climate Change, Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 2141-2144

——————————————————————–
Page 139 of 163
decrease in Arctic sea ice extent, and a decrease in the amplitude of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO)14,15,16.
Modelling work has shown that temperature would respond rapidly if these options were implemented quickly15 [A6, B9], so there may be little harm in delaying their deployment until ‘dangerous’ climate change is imminent. If they were stopped abruptly, however, either due to failure or policy decisions, rapid climate change could result because the ‘masking’ effect of geo-engineering would be removed17 [B1, B9, F9, AB3]. Such rapid climate change could have severe impacts on both human and environmental systems15.