Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Earth Science

The CIA Wants To Know How To Control the Climate 238

Posted by samzenpus
from the fire-the-hurricane-gun dept.
Taco Cowboy writes " The CIA is currently funding, in part, a $630,000 study on geoengineering, the science of using experimental techniques to modify Earth's climate. Scientists will study how humans might influence weather patterns, assess the potential dangers of messing with the climate, and investigate possible national security implications of geoengineering attempts. The study calls for information on two geoengineering techniques in particular, 'solar radiation management (SRM),' which refers to launching material into Earth's atmosphere to try and block the Sun's infrared radiation, limiting global temperature rise; and 'carbon dioxide removal (CDR),' taking carbon dioxide emissions out of the climate, which scientists have proposed doing through a variety of means, from structures that eat air pollution to capturing carbon emissions as they come out of smokestacks."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The CIA Wants To Know How To Control the Climate

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:37AM (#44315705)

    Hmm.

    • by lxs (131946)

      After earthquake control [realclearpolitics.com] where do you go as an agency? Remote viewing? Mind control lasers? That's so 1970s. Let's face it, in this harsh world you're only as good as your latest doomsday weapon.

    • Humans in general like to LOOK at nature, not be subject to it's whims. Especially after we messed up the usual pattern.

      And why not the US? The UN has signaled it is against geoengineering in principle. This makes strategic sense, it would be foolish to allow big carbon emitters to say "Oh, we'll just fix it later" while continuing to burn coal like there's no tomorrow. However, it's clear that some climate change is going to happen, and that it will negatively impact a lot of people. Not research
      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        Humans in general like to LOOK at nature, not be subject to it's whims. Especially after we messed up the usual pattern.

        And why not the US? The UN has signaled it is against geoengineering in principle. This makes strategic sense, it would be foolish to allow big carbon emitters to say "Oh, we'll just fix it later" while continuing to burn coal like there's no tomorrow. However, it's clear that some climate change is going to happen, and that it will negatively impact a lot of people. Not researching geoengineering is kind of foolish in that sense. Those countries which are contributing to climate change should probably invest in fixing the problems they largely created. Ideally after doing no further damage, but none of us were born yesterday: we know we're going to be getting our power coal until some climate-change related problem makes enough people in the US realize that nuclear or solar power would have been a better choice..

        It's pretty clear that managing emissions down to pre-industrial levels is a non-starter; even if we did agree that it is a problem, we simply can never agree as a planet on what each nation's "fair" reduction would be. Therefore, it will be the usual token gestures of reducing carbon by x percent in a certain industry while other industries quickly rise up to fill the gap. If climate change is going to hurt us, our only protection will be taking action *after* it happens, until then there just won't be c

      • by Sperbels (1008585)

        And why not the US? The UN has signaled it is against geoengineering in principle. This makes strategic sense, it would be foolish to allow big carbon emitters to say "Oh, we'll just fix it later" while continuing to burn coal like there's no tomorrow.

        Um, we're talking about the CIA here...not the NOAA. The CIA doesn't give a shit about climate change.

        • by Electricity Likes Me (1098643) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @10:40AM (#44317509)

          Most national intelligence agencies care about climate change, because changes in local rainfall, drought and flood patterns is going to lead to unrest and the movement of peoples and what comes with that. Geoengineering falls under this umbrella easily: being able to predict who's going to get screwed by it is a pretty good way to predict who's going to be coming after the US for it, and where the new hotspots/issues will arise.

          A huge part of any intelligence agency's mission is to discern the underlying factors which motivate the behavior of countries: someone beating the drums for war usually has an ulterior motive to the stated one, both locally and abroad.

    • by the gnat (153162)

      I'm extremely reluctant to defend the CIA in most circumstances, but I think the poster (or possibly the source article) may have misunderstood the point of this study. If there was a potential superweapon that could be used against your country, wouldn't you want to know everything possible about it so you could a) possibly detect it in advance, and b) defend against it? Who knows what the CIA's real motivations are - it's not like they have any kind of democratic accountability - but assuming that this

    • Well look on the bright side, at least one prominent US agency has now shown interest in halting global warming and reducing the amount of CO2 in the air.

      And if they happen to find a way to harmlessly dissipate an incoming hurricane or super-typhoon before it annihilates a population center, so much the better.

    • Everyone knows humans don't have an effect on climate. Look how little a person is compared to the Earth! It's all solar cosmic rays and Martian volcanos getting closer to Earth that makes it get warmer, just like when dinosaurs ruled things and made people's live in caves instead of drive cars wherever they wanted.

  • Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BSAtHome (455370) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:41AM (#44315711)

    The most obvious answer is always the one (almost) never thought of or mentioned: stop polluting the planet.

    • by gigaherz (2653757)
      Always thought, never mentioned.
      • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gigaherz (2653757) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:45AM (#44315723)
        To expand on it: avoiding pollution can be expensive, and it's not in anyone's immediate interests to spend money just to be greener. People can think long-term, but corporations are usually short-term money-making machines, so green is only ever used as a PR measure to paint themselves more attractive, or avoid taxes.
        • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

          by DarkOx (621550) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:05AM (#44315805) Journal

          It's not just the corporations. Actually most of the corporations like being in a somewhat affluent society. They are much cleaner than they otherwise would be. Consider here in the US we have more forest than we had 100 years ago, we have about doubled the cars on the road since the 70s and held emmisions mostly constant. Our carbon foot print is big because our living standard is high but if you look at and activity basis rather than a per capita basis we do things with higher carbon efficiencies than most of the world.

          Think about cooking, driving, electrical generation etc. compare the carbon output of the way we usually do those activities to say India, or Chad.

          Running around trying to manage all the greenhouse gas sources only works when you have piles of money to throw at the problem and even then it does not achieve the goal of preserving our comfortable life style and stopping climate change, it demands sacrifice and sacrifice sucks!

          Geoengineering or centralized carbon scrubbing is the future, that or radical population controls. I am more comfortable with the former, I bet most people will be too when they sit down and think on it. What's sad here is its the spooks behind this instead of transparent organization

          • Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)

            by Poeli (573204) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:45AM (#44315913)

            Our carbon foot print is big because our living standard is high but if you look at and activity basis rather than a per capita basis we do things with higher carbon efficiencies than most of the world.

            Most (western) European countries have an equally high living standard but a considerable lower carbon footprint. I doubt that bringing activity into the calculation will change much...

            • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

              by internerdj (1319281) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @07:53AM (#44316169)
              I'm definitely in the camp that Americans need to do more but that is a bit disingenuous comparison. It looks like the Western European Country with the lowest population density is three times the population density of the US. That has huge public transportation ramifications.
              • Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

                by buchner.johannes (1139593) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @10:54AM (#44317639) Homepage Journal

                I'm definitely in the camp that Americans need to do more but that is a bit disingenuous comparison. It looks like the Western European Country with the lowest population density is three times the population density of the US. That has huge public transportation ramifications.

                Only if you look at the average. The US has large empty areas. If you ignore them -- and you can, for the discussion about public transportation -- the eastern third of the country is densely populated, entirely comparable to Europe.

              • by sjames (1099)

                Even where we have HIGHER density than Europe, our public transportation is below standards. There's also VERY few people in our low density areas. You could easily go all day without seeing another person.

          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            Our carbon foot print is big because our living standard is high but if you look at and activity basis rather than a per capita basis we do things with higher carbon efficiencies than most of the world.

            Think about cooking, driving, electrical generation etc. compare the carbon output of the way we usually do those activities to say India, or Chad.

            That's a bit of a cop-out. Your standard of living is pretty good but comparable or better levels exist in countries where the carbon footprint is lower. Activity basis is a flawed measure because as you become more efficient it goes down. For example transporting things long distances is activity but often quite wasteful and unnecessary.

            Comparing yourself to India or Chad is just ridiculous, try France of the UK or other western European countries.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              Comparing yourself to India or Chad is just ridiculous, try France of the UK or other western European countries.

              I'd bet the US holds up quite well, especially since Europe started buying our surplus coal. I'd wager that a European city dweller is pretty much on par with a US city dweller, and the French in the countryside pretty much mirror the people in the US countryside. I'd also bet that any discrepancy is due to automobiles, since the US likes big engines and don't penalize as much for that taste. Even there, I'd bet the discrepancy has fallen quite a bit in recent years as our standards have tightened and Europ

              • by hrvatska (790627)
                West European countries would need to significantly raise their energy consumption or the US drastically lower its to have the US start approaching European levels of energy consumption. Even comparing urban dwellers, US cities tend to be much more car centric. You just can't consider living a middle class life in a great many US cities without a car for each working person. This is much less the case in Europe. And while the US has made great strides in improving the energy efficiency of its cars, West Eur
                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  I agree that the US is behind Europe on fuel efficiency of our car fleet - though we have made recent strides. Also, the measure that the Europeans use for fuel economy is much looser than the US standard - in reality, many of the cars available are virtually the same yet have drastically different ratings in the US and Europe.

                  You can't compare the entire US to France - the US on the whole has a much rougher climate than most of France. There are few areas of the US with the kind of mild climate that part o

                  • by hrvatska (790627)
                    You can't compare the entire US to France, and that wasn't my point, but France is a huge piece of Europe. I don't think you can find a similarly large portion of the US that is as dependent on nuclear. And while climate does give an advantage to Europe, I have noticed that Europeans tend to be more conservative in they ways that they use energy. I think this is a result of the US historically having such vast stores of fossil fuel and Europe being impoverished after WWII. If energy is relatively more expe
        • by Overzeetop (214511) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @07:13AM (#44316003) Journal

          Consider this: since our economy is based on carbon fuels (renewable sources are very small), every dollar (or euro or yuan) goes into creating carbon emissions.

            0. If you buy stuff or services, where does the money go?
            1. To the seller (20%) - who pays for stuff (goto 0), services (goto 0), and fuel (heat, electricity, personal transportation - carbon emissions)
            2. To the distributer (20%) - who pays for stuff (goto 0), services (goto 0), and fuel (heat, electricity, transportation - carbon emissions)
            3. To the shipper (5%) - of which most goes to fuel (carbon emissions), and the rest goes for stuff (goto 0), and services (goto 0)
            4. To the producer (55%)
            5. And the producer pays for wages for people [to buy stuff (goto 0), services (goto 0), fuel (heat, electricity, manufacturing - carbon emissions)] and raw materials [which used carbon-based fuels for extraction/mining/refinement/etc. and results in carbon emissions]

          With the industrial revolution switch from human power to machine power, the entire economy is based on us paying for energy. The root of all transactions are to pay for fuel. Nobody "pays" for crop growth or minerals - dollars don't flow to mother nature or the ruler of the earth as a dead-end, just to the people who use energy to promote growth or extract minerals. If the economy were based entirely on real/near-time solar sources (sun, wind, hydro) and nuclear, that would be a different equation as all roads wouldn't lead to carbon emissions. But even buying a solar panel or windmill is non-green, as current technology spends as much in fossil fuel to mine, refine, produce, distribute, install, and maintain the equipment as you get back in power.

          Now, that kind of sucks, but it does offer insight into how to *truly* reduce carbon emissions, and that is to minimize your lifecycle costs for everything. Being efficient *is* being green if you're at the end-user point where you cannot control the mix of energy production sources. If you are at the energy producer level (which is almost none of us), you can control carbon emissions through the selection of source - coal, oil, nat gas. (I leave out nuclear and solar, as they are simply purchasers of carbon-based materials like the rest of us, and I leave out fiber incineration/contemporary organics as that's primarily an oil-based source as oil is used for promotion, harvest, and transportation).

          • by Smidge204 (605297)

            But even buying a solar panel or windmill is non-green, as current technology spends as much in fossil fuel to mine, refine, produce, distribute, install, and maintain the equipment as you get back in power.

            Might be the case, but it needn't be. Much of the energy required to produce something like a solar panel or wind turbine can itself come from renewable resources.

            But your point about improving end use efficiency is dead on: one unit saved at point of use could result in dozens or hundreds of units saved as you go up the supply chain.
            =Smidge=

          • by DCFusor (1763438)
            You left out a few obvious and large places the money goes. Banks - every person in that chain borrowed money, and has to pay interest. Taxes - mostly dead weight. If you never borrow a dime yourself, an astonishing percentage of all money you spend pays some interest to some bankers. Period. You can't starve them out.
        • by tsa (15680)

          Indeed. And because the corporations can not be counted upon to 'go green.' So the government has to force them to do that. And because the US and other countries are governed by corporations, nothing will happen until the corporations see their profits deminish because of global warming or other causes that they can do something about. For instance, fish factories are already working on and implementing sustainable methods of catching and/or breeding fish, because if they wouldn't they would go out of busi

      • by RoboJ1M (992925)

        "carbon dioxide removal (CDR),' taking carbon dioxide emissions out of the climate"

        Have they also considered not bulldozing every tree in sight?

    • Re:Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pinkushun (1467193) * on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:59AM (#44315773) Journal

      Exactly this. $630,000 that could be used to educate and bring awareness to the people. We are the ones targeted by products, and we have to make an informed choice about what is useful vs what is damaging. Isn't that also known as "geoengineering"? I believe it is, and on a global scale too.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Seumas (6865)

      That seems to completely miss the point. The CIA doesn't give a shit about "climate change" or whatever we're calling it this week. They care about ability to and implications of controlling and weaponizing weather. Some asian country giving the USA shit? Send a hurricane their way. Some south american country not playing along with US policy or making us look bad? Cause an earthquake. Want to bolster US corn syrup? Cause an extensive drought in sugar producing regions of other nations.

    • Fusion (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Thanshin (1188877) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @07:35AM (#44316091)

      The most obvious answer is always the one (almost) never thought of or mentioned: stop polluting the planet.

      - Develop cold fusion.
      - Replace polluting energy sources by unlimited fusion energy.
      - Use unlimited energy to reverse the polluting mechanisms (carbon scrubbing).

      Some times I wonder how bad is the player that's managing Humans in the intergalactic strategy game. Somewhere there's a civilization that made a fusion rush and are now conquering their galaxy.

      Maybe we're the AI set to Dumb.

    • by MightyYar (622222)

      That's it! So instead of creating mitigation measures, we should just count on the ability of all the nations of the world to join hands and sing!

    • by khallow (566160)

      The most obvious answer is always the one (almost) never thought of or mentioned: stop polluting the planet.

      And it has an obvious problem. You can only eliminate the pollution by eliminating the productive activity that lead to the pollution. That's why no one considers it. We have higher priorities than stop polluting the planet.

    • by erroneus (253617)

      While I agree we shouldn't pollute the planet and that we should strive to be as neutral to this planet as possible, I have started having some doubts that warming is caused in any meaningful way by man's activities. Given the situation on Mars I have to wonder. Science is science and it means we should keep our eyes open to new possibilities.

      Do I deny that we should keep the planet clean? Hell no. We should. It's in our best interests. And we should ensure that enough O2 producing life is available t

    • It is the most obvious and most thoughtless answer.

      1. There is a trade off for everything we do. If we do not pollute we in essence will live back in the stone ages. However we will still be producing Bio Waste and without those polluting infrastructures we will create a hazardous environment that will kill millions of people and plants and animals, really messing stuff up. There is a reason why Stone age man life span was averaged at 35 years, and it wasn't getting eaten by a predator.

      2. If too many pe

    • In politics, if there's a problem with an obvious solution, and it's not already happening, there are barriers to that. Usually someone with a lot of power, and very often a lot of FUD confusing the idiot voters.

      The drug war, for example. It's blindingly obvious what SHOULD happen to anyone with half a brain, but that doesn't describe a lot of voters, and there's law enforcement and the prison industry making sure we don't decriminalize drugs, so we don't. Instead we waste a hell of a lot of money
    • The most obvious answer is always the one (almost) never thought of or mentioned: stop polluting the planet.

      Since we already know that dung fires are more polluting than industrial power plants, per capita, what does this really mean? It means bringing technology to the masses, and then building clean, distributed power plants to power that technology.

      We have the technology to do this, and clean up previous generations' left-behind pollution (i.e. nuclear waste) but governments are preventing industry from

  • Global warming is real. Now if the Department of Transportation starts digging lots of holes [cnn.com] in the ground then I guess well also know the meteor is coming...
    • Global warming is real.

      . . . if it's not real, the CIA will now be able to make it real for us . . .

      • . . . if it's not real, the CIA will now be able to make it real for us . . .

        Naw, we just learned that it's the CIA who blackened the skies in the war against the machines. Totally foolish, incites blowback, and works against the national interest. Makes perfect sense in retrospect, really.

  • I just wonder why the funding is coming from the CIA. Surely having another US Government organisation providing the money would be less controversial.

    • by FaxeTheCat (1394763) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @05:55AM (#44315759)
      Doing something unusual like reading the TFA reveals:
      "It should be noted, and in fact highlighted, that CIA is only funding a portion of this study, with the rest provided by NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences itself."
      "one of the objectives of the study is to discuss the possible national security concerns that might arise should geoengineering techniques be deployed (expected or unexpectedly), either by a private entity or another country."
    • Goes hand in hand with rising populations, particularly in Africa and SE Asia. As populations continue to grow in these regions, ever more pressure will be put on food production. Food production has to effectively quadruple in the next fifty years. Those who master Geo-engineering technologies will be best suited to survive the increasingly hostile planet. In respect to the CIA, processing these technologies will provide leverage with foreign governments, to maintain the balance of power, maintain allianc
  • HAARP (Score:2, Informative)

    by scan2006 (313789)

    I thought they used HAARP to control the weather

  • relax! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:02AM (#44315791)

    Since the use of "ad trap" tactics (CIA... Geoengineering... success!) are usual nowdays in Slashdot:
    The study is commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49540) and their spokesperson states that the study is not designed to test any geoengineering methods or experiment with any findings whatsoever, but rather "assess the current state of knowledge about several geoengineering techniques," and use the findings to inform "future discussions" about their use, and the CIA's involvement "begins and ends with its financial contributions.", CIA is only funding a portion of this study, with the rest provided by NOAA, NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences itself.", the study sponsors, including the CIA, only address the committee in charge of the study once, at the beginning, and "do not correspond with the committee or provide any further input into the study. They receive a final, independently peer-reviewed report with the study's findings at the end of the project", "one of the objectives of the study is to discuss the possible national security concerns that might arise should geoengineering techniques be deployed (expected or unexpectedly), either by a private entity or another country.".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:06AM (#44315813)

    If only we had a solar powered carbon sink, that you could put somewhere and leave for 20 years, then come harvest it for a resource to build buildings and create heat? If only they also made oxygen helped nature and looked good on the horizon.

    • Won't someone think of the trees?

    • by abies (607076) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @08:39AM (#44316437)

      Because they are terribly inefficient? According to http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm [ncsu.edu], 1 tree process around 24kg of CO2 per year. Refrigerator (which I'm not giving away to be 'green'), according to http://www.botany.org/planttalkingpoints/co2andtrees.php [botany.org], produce almost 900kg of CO2 because of energy used per year. This means, I need almost 40 full-grown trees just to cover my refrigerator. If you add some other things, like PC I'm writing it on, water heating, house warming, washing machine, etc etc, we are probably talking about acre of forest just to cover my family needs. Don't know about you, but I live in area where space is a bit of premium and people are sometimes failing to secure 50m^2 apartment in multi-store building (which translates to probably like 20m^2 of real ground space, even with pavements etc) - they can hardly affort paying for extra 5000m^2 of ground to plant forest there.

      Generally, plants are very bad at anything they do, if you look from pure efficiency point of view. Same way as solar panels are order (or even few) of magnitude better at converting solar to energy than plants, there might be a non-plant solution for getting rid of CO2 in hundred times more efficient manner than trees are doing that now.

      I'm a lot more worried about all these ideas with 'lets change the albedo', 'lets spray air with nanoparticles of HaArP molecules' etc. We don't know a lot about our planet and I'm afraid that any manual steering of single variables will cause catastrophic results.

      • by xtal (49134)

        Canada has around 1,000 million acres of forest lands. It is hard to get your head around exactly how big a space that is.

        You can make up for low efficiency with volume, unlike profit. Trees are a tremendously underutilized resource. The trees don't have to necessarily be on top of where you are to get a mass benefit - although that depends on where you are.

        The US has similar potential volumes for tree growth; maybe more so, depending as the average state is more temperate than up here.

        • by abies (607076)

          Yes, Canada has incredibly thin population density. 228th in the world for 243 listed countries. In global scale, you might need maybe 1 acre of forest per person to cover everything. Which means that Canada forests cover for India population. Thats cool. We can probably pair up countries like that and we are ok.
          Now, let's say that population of India doubles. Do you have spare 1000 million of acres of land in Canada to plant extra trees there?

          I would be more ok with reducing population of world, rather tha

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 18, 2013 @06:07AM (#44315817)

    To divert the sun's rays

  • This being the CIA and all, to me this sounds like an investigation whether they can use geo-engineering as an offensive weapon themselves. You know, stop all the rains in your enemy's country and watch that country collapse without any "human" casualties.

  • in particular, 'solar radiation management (SRM),'

    Don't do it! We know ice ages can come on in as little as a few years. All it takes is one extra cool summer where the snow pack doesn't fully melt and so much energy gets reflected back into space the next winter is severe and even more snow builds up. It's a local attractor in chaos theory, or a stable local minimum on the energy gradiant space.

    With warming, moving in from the sea over 100-300 years: irritation but nobody dies, and lives continue to imp

  • .., be scared now. The CIA, really?! You _know_, absolutely and without doubt, that they are doing this with the intent of hurting someone or more likely, a whole bunch of someones.

  • Let's say run a company with 2 million employees and you have a departments which specialize in graphic design for the company, including the best and brightest with all the technology and creativity at their fingertips. Accounting doesn't get to hire an outside firm to design their new departmental logo.

    The US already has a department for this - NOAA. If the CIA want's this kind of data, they need to go ask NOAA for it, not spend 2/3 of a million dollars on some contractor to put together a useless fluff p

  • by argStyopa (232550) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @08:08AM (#44316275) Journal

    $630k is like pop-machine change in government terms.

    $80,000 writing the proposal for funding
    $170,000 for 17 interns to edit it
    $60,000 for 3 admins to bang the interns during "late night editing sessions"
    $3000 for abortions
    $200,000 the inevitable hush-money to the interns
    $310,000 for the multimedia presentation of the project to admins.

    No, it doesn't add up to $630k. This is GOVERNMENT. Having the numbers match up costs extra.

  • Given man's track record to royally fsck stuff up before truly understanding the big picture I think we should be adapting before modifying.

    • Come on, what's the worst that could happen?

      "Trust me, I'm with the government."
      [Presses Climate-o-matic button]...
      [Europe freezes and India is wiped off the map by tsunamis]
      "Oops. Uh, somebody confiscate Fox News' e-mails so they don't report this."

  • by mbone (558574)

    Proposals and discussions about "weaponizing the weather [salon.com]" go back (in the US) to the 1950's. I can even remember the Castro regime complaining about US manipulation of hurricanes (to hit Cuba).

  • The CIA is turning into Cobra, "a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world"*...

    Today the Weather Dominator... tomorrow the MASS Device... and then the world**!!!!

    Where's a Real American Hero*** when we need one?

    * even their names share similarities. Add two "o" (one connected to the "I" of CIA) and the letter "r" and what do you have?
    ** although arguably they are working in reverse... they already have "the world" in their clutches, they have the basic tech for the MASS Device - quantum

    • Now I know, and knowing was half the battle.

      Intel stats say we now have a 50% success rate against these foes.

  • Why are they not studying the effects of air traffic? This is also a known modifier of the weather, so why not study what happens when you ban certain routes or move major ones? While it might raise airline prices (possibly only short term) it seems less damaging than spraying shit into the air or sequestering CO2.
  • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Thursday July 18, 2013 @10:32AM (#44317431) Journal

    Shouldn't this be a project(s) funded by the NSF? Just because it might have national security implications doesn't mean the CIA's role should be expanding into scientific research.

  • Before we can control something, we have to understand it well enough to be able to predict it accurately. Despite all the supercomputers in use for weather system modelling, we can't do that. Unless and until we can, trying to modify the weather systems is suicidally dangerous. Not just to people in the area, but to people around the globe affected by the larger pattern of the systems.

  • This article should have the above tag.

    So the CIA would like to have at their disposal those scientists in the Flint movie who controlled the world's climate using volcanoes. Kidding aside, the "I" doesn't seem to stand for "Intelligence" any more. (More like "Incompetence", IMHO.) Hell, they can't even figure out who the good guys are before toppling foreign governments; what chance do they have in managing the planet's climate?

    Seeing as how the Earth's climate has been getting changed by humans for qu

  • http://www.atlasfilm.com/product/by-genre/classic---cult/the-noahs-ark-principle.html [atlasfilm.com]

    Sometime in the future.... a gigantic European-American meteorological research station "The Florida Arklab" circles the earth with a crew of two men. Equipped with high-tech machinery, Max Marek, scientist, and Billy Hayes, chief technician, are in charge of global weather forecasts and climate control. Realizing that the radiation to which the capsule is exposed has become incalculable, scientists and politicians on eart

  • I don't see how *this* could end badly....... /sarcasm>

  • They will have to realize the uselessness of their organization and the likes of their organization. For the human mind/body is a powerful influencial system on nature, including climate.

    Rain Dances and such are not without real effect.

Parkinson's Law: Work expands to fill the time alloted it.

Working...