A discussion of geonegineering, aviation and the melting of the North Pole
Seemorerocks
Until roughly 2012 I took for granted what most media was saying about climate change. Then I learned about positive feedback and the methane
clathrate gun and realised that we were not exactly being told the truth about things.
Climate
change is abrupt and NOW, and about far more than gradual sea level
rise.
Then
last summer I could not escape the profound changes in our skies. I
was coming across testimony from elsewhere but could afford to ignore
it largely.
From
a combination of what I was seeing in the sky above us and looking at
satellite pictures on NASA Worldview I began to realise that the
picture is way more complicated than even I had thought and after
doing some research I realised that, in addition to man made climate
from greenhouse gases there must be geoengineering happening.
This
short video encapsulates what I was seeing over summer - and today
(heading for the winter solstice) the skies are similar; it is warm
and temperatures during the night were 17 degrees Celsius (what it is
now in the early afternoon) and then dropped to 7 degrees.
Which brings me to Jim Lee who I regard as a pretty solid researcher on matters relating to climate change.
He has come out some pretty solid evidence as to the role aviation and "accidental geoengineering" is playing in melting the North Pole.
He has come out some pretty solid evidence as to the role aviation and "accidental geoengineering" is playing in melting the North Pole.
This is the latest to come out from New Scientist on 27 June, 2019.
27 June, 2019
Altogether,
flying is responsible for around 5 per cent of global warming, the
team says, so this figure will soar even higher – and no meaningful
actions are being taken to prevent this.....
...The
model accounts for not only of the change in air traffic volume, but
also the location and altitude of flights, along with the changing
climate.
The
team concludes that the warming effect of contrails will rise from 50
milliwatts per square metre of Earth’s surface in 2006 to 160 mW/m2
by 2050.
In
comparison, the warming due to CO2 from aviation will rise from 24 to
84 mW/m2 by this time.
****
As best I understand it Jim Lee is saying that aviation is responsible for melting the poles, something he says has been a goal since Jules Verne and that the Power-That-Be are trying to melt the ice so they can get their hands on the oil and gas resources in the new Cold War.
There is a certain validity to this and I am absolutely sure there is climate modification going on in the Arctic as well as elsewhere. After all, I have seen signs of this myself from just monitoring things through NASA Worldview.
But the idea that this trumps anthropogenic climate change from greenhouse gasses (which Lee seems to be contemptuous of)?
Of that I am rather dubious.
The article says that aviation accounts for "around 5 per cent of global warming" and that contrails are far more important than greenhouse gasses but only where it relates to aviation - not the whole.
Jim Lee, it seems, while he has come up with some pretty persuasive evidence, is overlooking a lot of important data such as the astronomical levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses corresponding with global heat that is completely unprecedented while weather chaos is on steroids.
Here is some of the articles cited in the above video
EU set to resist air industry attempts to limit climate change action
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2186746-eu-set-to-resist-air-industry-attempts-to-limit-climate-change-action/?fbclid=IwAR0My65FJMM0giCCRSD19TSGkgsquq8zMMWVSCgsSXRHk_0u3077ejNj_sY
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729014-800-get-cirrus-in-the-fight-against-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR2ROCt9CztM6rSqwlPQYlA2qJGeONpWleWP4Cr696u1BbszLJRM52_IGIE
"FEATHERY cirrus clouds are beautiful, but when it comes to climate change, they are the enemy. Found at high-altitude and made of small ice crystals, they trap heat – so more cirrus means a warmer world. Now it seems that, by destroying cirrus, we could reverse all the warming Earth has experienced so far."
In
2009, David Mitchell of the Desert Research Institute in Reno,
Nevada, proposed a radical way to stop climate change: get rid of
some cirrus. Now Trude Storelvmo of Yale University and colleagues
have used a climate model to test the idea.Storelvmo added powdered bismuth triiodide into the model’s troposphere, the layer of the atmosphere in which these clouds form. Ice crystals grew around these particles and expanded, eventually falling out of the sky, reducing cirrus coverage. Without the particles, the ice crystals remained small and stayed up high for longer.
The innocuous white trails that criss-cross the sky may not be as harmless as they look. In fact, they might have contributed to more global warming so far than all aircraft greenhouse gas emissions put together.
High-altitude clouds like cirrus warm the planet by trapping heat. Contrail “cirrus” does the same thing, but the question is: how much? We know that contrails trap some extra energy in the atmosphere: their radiative forcing trapped 10 milliwatts per square metre (mW/m2) in 2005, according to an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That compares with 28 mW/m2 trapped by all of the CO2 released by aircraft engines since the start of aviation.
However, the IPCC estimate only took into account relatively fresh, visible vapour trails that exist for just a few hours. Afterwards they spread out and become indistinguishable from normal cirrus. In this form they may trap energy in the atmosphere for many more hours.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20304-contrails-warm-the-world-more-than-aviation-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR0GBF_Z_8vjN5hT_p8GBZ9MXpg556OpRm4RXtqwAH-VIDBoN0J9JmkzIPM
Cloud blanket warms up melting icecap
LONDON,
30 January, 2016 –
Researchers
have identified another piece in the climate machinery that
is accelerating
the melting of the Greenland ice cap.
The icy hills are responding to the influence of a higher command
system: the clouds.
An
international research team led by scientists from the Catholic
University of Leuven in
Belgium report
in Nature Communications journal that
cloud cover above the northern hemisphere’s largest single volume
of permanent ice is raising temperatures by between 2° and 3°C and
accounting for 20-30% of the melting.
The
conclusion, based on imaging from satellites and on computer
simulations, is one more part of the global examination of the
intricate climate systems on which human harvests, health and
happiness ultimately depend.
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/cloud-blanket-warms-up-melting-icecap/?fbclid=IwAR2vtZZ0tF40BQ8LS2bRH9GOUIBzew6pETHvot7DK885GLZOiv4wAvXGPok
Here
is an article on the matter of cirrus clouds (which certainly matter
to me!)
#CirrusCloudsMatter Geoengineering with Cirrus Cloud Seeding
Scientists plan to melt cirrus clouds to stop global warming? Re-branded weather modification technology tackles climate change.
25 July, 2017
Back in 2015 I attended the EPA’s first-ever hearing on regulating jet aircraft emissions in Washington DC. Several environmental lobbying groups had sued to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from planes under the Clean Air Act saying that CO2 “endangered public health.” In my speech I said: Forget CO2 and greenhouse gases, we are concerned about metal particulates and cloud production.
These two quotes really stood out for me:
“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.” [1]
and
“A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.” [2]
These two research papers showed a gaping hole in computer models: aerosols, how they form clouds, and their effects on the climate.
2013 “Aerosol-cloud interactions are one of the main uncertainties in climate research.” [3
We know that climate change is very much tied to the stars. Our Sun’s solar cycle has a very important role in cloud formation and subsequently global temperature. This is starting to gain acceptance in the scientific world, however Electric Universe researchers have known this for quite some time. Check out my conversation with ADAPT 2030‘s David DuByne on the topic of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), solar cycles, and noctilucent clouds for even more info on this fascinating topic.
“Our clouds take their orders from the stars,” says the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. His documentary links galactic cosmic rays and their role in cloud production and comes to the conclusion:
“clouds are the main driver of climate change on Earth.” … “relation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover should also be of importance in an explanation of the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature, that has been found.” [4]
Jasper Kirkby from CERN’s CLOUD project broke new scientific ground when he realized that trees make aerosols that can act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) or cloud seeds. CERN’s team created clouds in a chamber with just tree-borne aerosols and galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Tree-based cloud seeding was not accounted for in geoengineering and climate models:
Jasper Kirkby, a CERN particle physicist, and his colleagues introduced a mixture of natural oxidants present in the air and an organic hydrocarbon released by coniferous plants. The hydrocarbon was rapidly oxidized. The only other ingredient allowed in the chamber was cosmic raysthe result means climate modelers can’t assume that the ancient past was much less cloudy simply because there was less sulfur dioxide. If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions…“This really does touch on the Gaia hypothesis,” he says, referring to the theory that Earth’s life behaves as a single organism that tends to preserve itself. “It’s a beautiful mechanism for trees to control their environment.”Judith Curry – The cloud-climate conundrum
The Lorax absolutely loves this revelation. #PlantTrees
In essence, climate computer modelers (programmers, and poor ones at that) thought that industrial pollution made the skies more cloudy today than in the past. They were wrong. They were also very wrong about whether cirrus clouds cooled or heated the planet for 50 years, let alone how much.
It gets worse for the poor cirrus clouds:
- Cloud blanket warms up melting icecap
- Greenland ice sheet melts more when it’s cloudy
- Clouds enhance Greenland ice sheet meltwater runoff
- Clouds, like blankets, trap heat and are melting the Greenland Ice Sheet
Now that the cat is out of the bag the question has to be asked: what is “their” plan?
The Contrail Conundrum: What To Do About Cirrus Clouds?
Did the EPA listen to my warnings in 2015? You betcha. So did the Obama administration, the ICAO, and the rest of the world. Working overtime during an extremely contentious election, the Powers that Be gathered, wrote an agreement to use biofuels for “contrail control” and dropped the EPA lawsuit. Once again, the airline industry skirted the law:
- July 25, 2016 – BREAKING: EPA To Limit Greenhouse Gases From Airplanes
- July 31, 2016 – White House releases “Federal Alternative Jet Fuel Research and Development Strategy”
- September 3, 2016 – China, U.S. and Europe pledge support for global aviation emissions pact
- September 12, 2016 – Greens move to dismiss EPA lawsuit over airplane emissions
Ulrich Schumman, one of the world’s top researchers on contrail-induced cirrus clouds made this statement in 2010 to the ICAO:
Both aspects (soot and flight routing) offer the potential for aviation to reduce the climate impact of aviation (less soot emissions, LESS WARMING and MORE COOLING CONTRAILS, predictable for OPERATIONAL PLANNING) [5]
This statement piqued my curiosity so I asked Dr. Rangasayi Halthore, the head of the FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI), what did Schumman mean?
His response made my jaw hit the floor:
Contrails during day cause cooling because of reflecting of sunlight back into space. During night, they trap infrared heat causing heating. So it is a balance between the two time intervals. We would like to have more CICs (contrail-induced cirrus clouds) during day and none during night. FAA Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night
So imagine my lack of surprise when I read this, dated July 21, 2017:
If the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate effect of cirrus thinning can be enhanced. For that, only the long-wave warming effect of cirrus clouds should be targeted, and their solar effect should be avoided. This can be achieved if seeding is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime seeding. [6]
Climate Change and Geoengineering: Artificially Cooling Planet Earth by Thinning Cirrus Clouds
Cirrus cloud seeding at night or in the Arctic could be deployed and, wait for it, maybe nobody will notice us doing it. This reminds of me the Arctic Methane Emergency Group’s plan to make noctilucent clouds of diamond dust and calls for geoengineering the Arctic and a recent geoengineer mentioning “The Arctic Council.” More on this in the future.
I take offense to the use of Ice-Nucleating Particles (INP) as a replacement for the 60 year old term Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). They are the same damn thing. Why do geoengineers always come up with new words for the same unreliable technology? Because they are circumventing laws governing cloud seeding by calling it something else, PERIOD.
Here are some highlights from the paper: A Cirrus Cloud Climate Dial?
“Cirrus clouds frequently form through homogeneous nucleation of liquid aerosol particles such as sulfuric or nitric acid. Alternatively, they can form through heterogeneous nucleation with the help of solid aerosol particles such as desert dust, pollen, or other biological particles, which act as ice-nucleating particles (INPs). The cirrus cloud thinning concept is based on the assumption that most cirrus clouds in the present climate nucleate homogeneously.”“The cooling effect of seeded cirrus clouds has three contributions. First, the cirrus clouds form at lower relative humidities that occur at lower altitudes in the atmosphere (see the figure), where they have a smaller warming effect. Second, because the number concentration of INPs is much lower than that of solution droplets, heterogeneously formed cirrus clouds contain fewer ice crystals. These ice crystals can grow to larger sizes and sediment more readily from cirrus levels, reducing the lifetime and optical thickness of cirrus clouds and hence their warming potential. Third, sedimenting ice crystals remove water vapor, the most important natural greenhouse gas, from the upper troposphere. [ED NOTE: lol, now suddenly water vapor is a problem. Admissions galore!]If cirrus thinning works, it should be preferred over methods that target changes in solar radiation, such as stratospheric aerosol injections, because cirrus thinning would counteract greenhouse gas warming more directly. Solar radiation management methods cannot simultaneously restore temperature and precipitation at present-day levels but lead to a reduction in global mean precipitation because of the decreased solar radiation at the surface. This adverse effect on precipitation is minimized for cirrus seeding because of the smaller change in solar radiation.”“One problem with cirrus seeding is overseeding, which occurs if too many INPs are injected. In overseeding, the cirrus clouds become optically thicker, leading to warming. … In addition, seeding needs to be avoided in cloud-free regions with high relative humidities where no cirrus clouds form. Here, seeding with INPs could lead to cirrus clouds that cause a warming effect on the climate, same as that from contrails. … Thus, if cirrus seeding is not done carefully, the effect could be additional warming rather than the intended cooling.”The results from model studies of cirrus thinning suggest that the perfect seeding INPs should be large and that seeding could be geographically or temporally limited. Bismuth triiodide (BiI3) has been suggested as a nontoxic and affordable substance for cirrus seeding; other substances such as mineral dust should work as well. [ED NOTE: like David Keith’s aluminum nano-particle idea? Sounds like SAI at a different altitude to me]
However, further research is needed to investigate which particles would be good seeding agents. It is also important to determine whether these INPs also influence lower-lying clouds, and if so, whether this enhances or dampens the effect of cirrus thinning.If the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate effect of cirrus thinning can be enhanced. For that, only the long-wave warming effect of cirrus clouds should be targeted, and their solar effect should be avoided. This can be achieved if seeding is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime seeding. Contrary to solar radiation management methods, cirrus seeding is more effective at high than at low latitudes. A small-scale deployment of cirrus seeding could therefore be envisioned—for instance, in the Arctic to avoid further melting of Arctic sea ice. Governance of such local climate engineering might be easier to achieve than for solar radiation management, especially if substantial climate effects outside the targeted region could be avoided. [6]
This cirrus cloud seeding idea is not new, I mentioned it at the EPA hearing back in 2015. Check out Trude Storelvmo at the Weather Modification Conference blurring the lines between Geoengineering SRM and Cloud Seeding: On The Climate Response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding. Also see the Video Presentation on my YouTube channel.
It’s time we start talking Cirrus-ly about Cirrus Clouds.
Cirrus clouds are the problem. People who want to experiment on cirrus clouds to cool the planet are the problem. The reason is simple:
- They WANT clouds by day, none by night.
- They will seed chemicals to melt cirrus clouds away at night or over the arctic.
- They will even shoot lasers at cirrus clouds to cool the planet!
- #CirrusCloudsMatter
Download the fullsize image featured at the top of this page which is based on an image from Gasparini’s page.
References
[1] Boucher, O. Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1078.html
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1078.html
[2] Haywood, J. M., R. P. Allan, J. Bornemann, P. Forster, P. N. Francis, S. Milton, G. Rädel, A. Rap, K. P. Shine, and R. Thorpe (2009), A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D24201, doi:10.1029/2009JD012650. – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract
[3] Ulrike Lohmann, Miriam Kübbeler, Johannes Hendricks and Bernd Kärcher “Dust ice nuclei effects on cirrus clouds in ECHAM5-HAM” AIP Conf. Proc. 1527, 752 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4803380
[4] Svensmark, Henrik, and Eigil Friis-Christensen. “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships.” Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics 59.11 (1997): 1225-1232.
http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Internacional/HenrikSvensmark/svensmark_96_variations%20of.pdf
http://thecloudmystery.com/The_Cloud_Mystery/Home.html
[5] Ulrich Schumann, German Aerospace Center, Recent research results on the climate impact of contrail cirrus and mitigation options, ICAO Colloquium on Aviation and Climate Change 2010
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalColloquium/Documents/2010-Colloquium/1_Schumann_ContrailMitigation.pdf
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/EnvironmentalColloquium/Documents/2010-Colloquium/1_Schumann_ContrailMitigation.pdf
[6] Ulrike Lohmann, Blaž Gasparini. “A cirrus cloud climate dial?” Science 21 Jul 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6348, pp. 248-249 DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3325
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/248
***
A debate between a geoengineering researcher and a professional Debunker
Vol. 357, Issue 6348, pp. 248-249 DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3325
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/248
***
A debate between a geoengineering researcher and a professional Debunker
I always find it instructive to see two people lock horns in debate.It often brings out the truth.
The one thing that comes out is that, in contrast to Jim Lee and his solid research, Mick Lee knows very little about his subject of discussion.
On the other hand, through his sceptical but largely uninformed questioning he does bring out some of the confusing logic of what Jim Lee is saying.
However, if I was given a black vs. white choice I would go with Jim Lee any day.
Mick West & Jim Lee Debate Chemtrails, Geoengineering, &
Semantics
Just to illustrate my dicomfiture the following made me extremely uncomfortable. Although it dates back to 2012 and I am unsure of how their views have changed the following puts some of my favourite sources, Sam Carana, Malcolm Light and Harold Hensell into the group of crazy geoengineers.
If I have got it right they wanted, at least back then, to frack the Arctic!
"You
can view the presentation by clicking on the link
below:
When it comes to an assessment of where we are I remain fully with Guy McPherson.
Neither geoengineering, blotting out the sun, or anything else mad scientists can come up is going to save us.
It is all in the lap of the gods.
On a final note I will repost the debate between Dane Wigington and Paul Beckwith.
Make up your own mind where you stand.
Part one
Part two
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.