Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) aka Chemtrails

Here is the ‘White Paper’ for Stratosperic Aerosol Injection (SAI) or also layman’s term ‘Chemtrails’ – SAI is terminology to be used if you inquire about the skies to the government.  

They’ve been doing this spraying since the 60’s. I use to have a military file that mentioned ‘Bio-warfare’ and using it on ‘citizens’.  

What happened to our blue skies?  Why do we get a ‘white shade’ pulled across the sky?  Why are there no longer ‘ConTrails’ which are ice crystals that form from high altitude and dissipate within 30 – 45 seconds as they drop to warmer air?  Why do so many people now have asthma, lung issues, coughs, sore throats and other upper respiratory illnesses and diseases?  

This is not by accident – research ‘Weather Wars” click on Resources above and scroll down to the files.  Education is key, not ‘Indoctrination’.

Relevant climate response tests for stratospheric aerosol injection: A combined ethical and scientific analysis 


In this paper, we focus on stratospheric sulfate injection as a geoengineering scheme, and provide a combined scientific and ethical analysis of climate response tests, which are a subset of outdoor tests that would seek to impose detectable and attributable changes to climate variables on global or regional scales. We assess the current state of scientific understanding on the plausibility and scalability of climate response tests. Then, we delineate a minimal baseline against which to consider whether certain climate response tests would be relevant for a deployment scenario. Our analysis shows that some climate response tests, such as those attempting to detect changes in regional climate impacts, may not be deployable in time periods relevant to realistic geoengineering scenarios. This might pose significant challenges for justifying stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection deployment overall. We then survey some of the major ethical challenges that proposed climate response tests face. We consider what levels of confidence would be required to ethically justify approving a proposed test; whether the consequences of tests are subject to similar questions of justice, compensation, and informed consent as full-scale deployment; and whether questions of intent and hubris are morally relevant for climate response tests. We suggest further research into laboratory-based work and modeling may help to narrow the scientific uncertainties related to climate response tests, and help inform future ethical debate. However, even if such work is pursued, the ethical issues raised by proposed climate response tests are significant and manifold.
1 Introduction

Geoengineering, or the intentional manipulation of the climate system at a global scale, has recently gained attention as a possible method of combating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Many proposed geoengineering methods fall under the umbrella of “solar radiation management” (SRM) schemes, which aim to cool the planet. Stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection (SSI) is one of the most commonly discussed techniques because, compared to other SRM schemes, as some argue there is greater confidence that its deployment would cool the planet, as the basic mechanism of albedo reflection from aerosols is relatively well understood and demonstrated, particularly in the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Some have argued that SSI is potentially less expensive and may require less technological development for deployment than other approaches such as marine cloud brightening, although these arguments are contentious and may be incorrect.1

In order to better inform the debates surrounding SSI governance and ethics, it is important to be able to predict accurately what SSI would do to the earth system. However, prediction of the climate effects of SSI deployment is limited by a lack of understanding of the relevant physical processes, and insufficient representation of these processes in climate models. While large volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo can provide a useful natural analog for SSI [Robock et al., 2013], differences in the size distribution and composition of the injected aerosols and in the duration of the injection prevent this natural analog from resolving many of the relevant uncertainties. Recognizing this, some [e.g., Keith et al., 2010] have proposed field tests of SSI in order to constrain uncertainties in the models used to make predictions of its effects.

In this paper, we explore the ethical issues associated with various types of SSI tests, with a particular focus on ethical and scientific issues surrounding climate response tests. In Section 2, we delineate different types of possible tests, and review the scientific literature regarding the duration and spatial scale involved for each type. We question whether climate response tests of regional impacts can be undertaken in a way that is scientifically and ethically relevant for a deployment scenario. Then, in Sections 3–5, we address three specific ethical questions pertinent to ethically and scientifically relevant climate response tests: (1) Are there different evidential thresholds required for answering different questions within testing given the ethical context within which testing takes place? (2) Are the potential impacts on communities by climate response tests subject to similar questions of justice, compensation and informed consent as full-scale deployment? And (3) Is there something morally different about the intent for which climate response tests are done if the consequences are similar to deployment but at a different scale? Finally, in Section 6, we offer some suggestions on how to approach the scientific and moral dilemmas associated with climate response tests.
2 Scales of SSI Tests

The ability to distinguish between testing and deployment of SSI has been controversial within the scientific geoengineering literature. Whereas some authors argue that it is possible to undertake smaller scale SSI tests, others, such as Robock et al. [2010], assert that “stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full implementation”. However, Robock et al. do not actually define “testing” or “implementation” in their paper, and it seems that, in addition to scientific uncertainty regarding what could be learned with test injections of various scales, much of the disagreement has arisen from a subsequent lack of clarity about the definitions of testing and deployment. What some might count as a smaller scale SSI test under one definition, might be considered full-scale deployment under other definitions. This points to a theoretical difficulty that underpins the debate, namely that there is no clear definition of what separates a test from deployment.

One could define “deployment” (or implementation) as a geoengineering activity which is intended to either stabilize the Earth’s global average temperature or, as has been more recently suggested, to limit the rate of global temperature increase [e.g., Keith, 2013; MacMartin et al., 2014]. Under this definition, there is no single scale at which something becomes deployment, because the scale required would depend on the climate goal involved. “Testing”, on the other hand, has been defined as an activity whose main purpose is to learn about geoengineering’s effectiveness in achieving its goals in stopping or slowing climate change and to better understand the risks of the geoengineering technology.2 However, one way to learn about a technique’s effectiveness is to actually deploy it. Thus, based on this definition, one can coherently intend to test by deploying, which means there may be overlap between testing and deployment, such that you could (1) deploy without testing, (2) test without deploying, (3) deploy and test at the same time.3

Apart from intent, another way to distinguish testing is in terms of scale along dimensions such as time, space, or climate impacts. Keith et al. [2014] propose a hierarchy of different scales of outdoor tests of SRM techniques, including “technology development”, or small-scale outdoor tests of the deployment technology itself, e.g., the canceled Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) outdoor field test [Pidgeon et al., 2013]; “process studies”, which aim to study the physical and chemical impacts of the geoengineering technology at the small spatial scale of clouds and aerosols; and “climate response tests” (CRTs), which consist of atmospheric experiments intended to actually evaluate the climate effects of the proposed geoengineering scheme by producing a detectable climate response.

The test hierarchy of Keith et al. [2014] is helpful. However, it is limited by the fact that there is no clear definition of what counts as a “climate response”. One issue this creates is that it is not clear what variable is being measured in such a test. For instance, is it the planetary albedo, temperature, precipitation, or some other variable? This matters because the scale of aerosol injection required to cause a signal distinguishable from natural variability depends greatly on the variable being measured. For example, changes in albedo produced by a small-scale injection would be easiest to observe. Changes in global mean temperature is more difficult to observe and would need a larger-scale injection. Changes in global mean precipitation are even more difficult, and regional temperature and precipitation would be even more difficult, requiring an even larger-scale injection. The larger the scale of an SSI test, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish it from deployment, so it is helpful to clarify the variable of interest.

A second issue about defining “climate response” concerns what variables we are willing to count as climate variables. For instance, some may question whether an albedo change counts as a climate response. We argue that it does, but for clarity, we introduce a new subset of CRTs, called “albedo response tests” (ARTs), in which the goal is to produce a change in the planetary albedo that can be detected by satellites and distinguished from natural variability. Furthermore, we propose clarifying the term “climate response test” (“CRT”) to mean a test in which success is defined according to detectable changes in albedo, temperature, precipitation, or whatever specific climate variable the test is attempting to measure.

Thus, CRTs can be classified according to the sort of variable(s) that test is attempting to detectably alter. Whatever the variable, the test would be aimed at constraining the uncertainty in the response from a larger deployment; for example, measuring the temperature response to a known imposed radiative forcing would help constrain the climate sensitivity and therefore the amount of aerosol needed to completely offset the warming from further CO2 emissions. Other kinds of response tests could arguably be important in evaluating SSI or other kinds of geoengineering techniques. These would include biological, ecological, and even socio-political response tests, which would help understand the impacts of climate change and geoengineering on systems of value (including human and non-human systems).

To develop a more nuanced sense of the scale of an SSI test we can think about it along three dimensions: duration, area coverage, and aerosol concentration. The degree of radiative forcing of the test depends on the latter quantity. Keith et al. [2014] delineated these scales for a number of different proposed tests of various geoengineering technologies. Figure 1 provides a sketch of the relevant time and spatial scales that would be involved in different types of outdoor SSI activities, ranging from process studies, to CRTs, to deployment. Figure 2 illustrates the trajectory of the radiative forcing over time for various types of tests and deployments. One useful metric for the scale of a test is the time-integrated radiative forcing (TIRF), which is represented by the area underneath the trapezoidal curves in Figure 2. The TIRF is the total amount of solar energy reflected back to space over the lifetime of the test or deployment.4  Click LINK to continue reading 


Comments are closed.