Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails
IPCC warns policymakers not to stop ‘solar radiation management’
By Rady Ananda
Global Research, November 05, 2013
The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:
“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]
“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” (referred to as “AR5”) supercedes the former report published in 2007. [1] The IPCC’s first Assessment Report was published in 1990.
The discussion in the Summary for Policymakers and in the body of AR5 commends solar radiation management over carbon dioxide removal methods, which are limited in their efficacy on a global scale, yet admits that neither are ideal, and that both geoengineering techniques will have long-term consequences.
“While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the ongoing reality of global geoengineering,” comments Dane Wigington at Geoengineering Watch, “the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.” [2]
Solar radiation management comprises various techniques aimed at reflecting or diverting solar radiation back into space, essentially increasing the planet’s albedo (reflectivity). Many geoengineers, along with the IPCC, prefer solar radiation management methods to carbon dioxide removal as a climate fix, given the planet’s complex carbon feedback loops, and the much cheaper and quicker method of spraying our skies with albedo-enhancing particles.
“Block the sun but continue to spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” is how Eli Kintisch characterizes SRM in his 2010 book, Hack the Planet. [3] In a world run by sanity, we would forego fossil fuels for free and abundant solar energy, coupled with Tesla’s development of free electricity, to meet the world’s energy needs, without destroying our nest by extracting and burning fossil fuels.
Solar radiation management has “three essential characteristics,” notes the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). “It is cheap, fast and imperfect,” [4] Citing geoengineering activist, David Keith, the IRGC explains that by injecting 13,000 tons of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere on a daily basis, they would offset the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This compares to having to remove “225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years.”
Were reason to prevail, we would capture solar energy, not block it; we would shun fossil fuels, not wage ecocidal wars to seize remaining supplies. In today’s world, however, policymakers have diverted billions of dollars into blocking the sun. Efficient systems cost around $10 billion a year, “well within the budgets of most countries,” notes the IRGC.
In addition to warning policymakers in its Summary that chemtrails must continue, the IPCC also denies that such programs exist. Buried within Chapter 7, the IPCC simply states, “SRM methods are unimplemented and untested.”
It’s an odd statement, given the warning that to stop SRM would heat the planet. Plus, the IPCC admits in AR5:
“New and improved observational aerosol datasets have emerged since AR4. A number of field experiments have taken place.”
One of the programs listed, the Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment, covered the Northern Hemisphere, measuring aerosols originating in Asia and crossing the Pacific into North America, then continuing across the continent, across the Atlantic Ocean and into Europe. Headed by the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Project, these flights ran in 2004 and 2006, and reportedly numbered less than four dozen.
Another “experiment,” the European Aerosol Cloud Climate and Air Quality Interactions project, started in January 2007 and ended in December 2010 – running for a full four years, and included Africa.
In addition to the joint regional projects, several nations also perform similar field trials within their own borders. India admits to running SRM programs for over ten years.
Surely, field trials move way beyond “experiments” when they cover continents and cross oceans and are performed over a period of years.
Another inconsistency in AR5 is its discussion of persistent contrails. Despite the dire warning in the Summary urging policymakers to continue with their solar radiation management programs lest the planet’s surface cooks, the body of AR5 sees persistent contrails as responsible for only a very slight increase in radiative forcing (where solar energy is radiated back into space).
Overall, the IPCC has “medium confidence” that these persistent contrails and their induced cirrus clouds do not change surface temperatures on the planet. This contradicts what scientists found during the 3-day grounding of all US planes after 9/11 (except those scooting Saudis out of the country). Ground temperatures increased 2-3 ºC during the absence of contrails, persistent or not.
The author incompletely references the Summary for Policy Makers of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report from Working Group I (available at http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf) as "[warning] that.. [Solar Radiation Management] SRM should be maintained." I located the direct quote Ananda uses from the report to support this characterization, and it is clearly taken out of context. The full statement, on p 27 of the report reads
"Modeling indicates that SRM methods, if realizable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise, but they would also modify the global water cycle, and would not reduce ocean acidification. If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing. CDR and
SRM methods carry side effects and long-term consequences on a global scale"
Use of the terms "modelling," "if realizable," "potential," and "would" clearly indicate that the paragraph is addressing the possible effects of a SRM program that is not in effect, yet Ananda ignores these and micro-focuses on one sentence that could, to a casual reader, be interpreted as indicating that such programs were underway. Ananda even elevates this to the title of her report. IMO she is either a charlatan or misinterpreting scraps of information as having meanings that are clearly contraindicated by their context, or in other words, paranoid.
Ananda goes on to quote another author from the same website (logrolling alert): "“the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.” Humbug. The discussion "indicates" no such thing. The possibility of SRM has been a subject of discussion for a long time but that doesn't mean that it is happening, especially on a global scale, which the report itself makes pretty clear.
The next few paragraphs, read in light of the above, are also easily dismissed as distortions.
Maybe another time I'll dig into the aerosol data Ananda reviews (which looks really interesting) but, given her distorted reporting above, I'm not inclined to at the moment.
Thank you, I was having a tough time finding the quote in the IPCC report for true context.
My son has often remarked about the increase in temperature during the grounding of planes on 9/11 and this was only for a few days. So in fact flying was sheilding us from the sun to a certain extent. But this spraying is barbaric, it is evil and can only spell the ultimate death of all living things including the human species. I agree these are mad scientist experimenting with us, the people. They need locking up in their towers. Have they thought through what their actions will achieve, I doubt it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
As Dane has stated, the temporary cooling caused by the aerosols results in the atmosphere holding the warmth close to Earth in the long run. On that count alone, SRM is a fail. I don’t doubt if the aerosols were abruptly stopped, there would be a rebound warming effect. It would be akin to having withdrawal from an addictive drug, but we would survive it. Citizens of Earth are being denied the benefits from solar energy and from Tesla’s free electricity, as Eli Kintisch states so clearly states. Vandana Shiva says, “The sun is not the problem, and these are stupid scientists.” What sane person would dispute that? Whether sanity will rule is yet to be seen.
I’m not naturally scientific, but I know for sure that there is life on this planet because of the Sun. (Managing the Sun, are they nuts?) The first to go will be the most essential microscopic deep sea plankton, the very food chain foundation of all larger lifeforms. Stupid scientists for sure.
March 22, 2016
I film enormous amounts of aerosol dispersed chemtrails daily. Day and Night, as soon as the sun is up the milky sky gives way to pale blue, within moments as many as ten to twenty planes arrive spraying right angle patterns in tandem, the GPS guided grid is sinister, it spreads out until the sky is completely opaque. In the morning there is a silver gray fog at ground level, the broadleaf plants have a coating of glitter (metal nano particles and larger) and anything black outside shows the same traces. Tar spots on the tree leaves and grayish discoloration are on every leaf of every tree. The ferns are burned looking on the tips and new growth even on the weeds are drooping their flowering buds. There are many more noticeable effects of stress due to the concentrations of Chemspray.
The weather models and GPS used for predicting and orchestrating aerosol disbursement do not account for ground turbulence, temperatures and vertical movement of close to ground air so the disbursements do not stay up in the 7 to 13 mile area of the atmosphere above earth as theorized it all comes down to ground level eventually. Literally every compound sprayed is a lie and deadly to plant animal and human life. The EPA report of on site and off site distribution shows ridiculous amounts of toxic aerosols, esters and polymers. The metallic nano particles are NOT directionally controllable so there is no way to direct the solar radiation either toward or away from earth. Every aspect of the theory of SRM is flawed with logical fallacy just like all capitalistic government controlled ventures. The U.S. Government and Fossil fuel industry and Military Industrial Complex is making too much money to stop killing everyone on earth now.
The real truth is….as long as fossil fuel and nuclear resources are controlled by the powers that be we will see a continued destruction of the entire environment. Nuclear proliferation blew the brains out of the upper and lower atmosphere from 1942 even until last week with North Korea's recent discharge, bringing radiation and cancer to all Citizens of Earth. 432 years half life for the most toxic bomb substances means cancer will be exploding on earth for many years to come. All the harmful compounds released are still present on earth redistributed by weather and artificial manipulation of land and water. Now in addition to that we have SRM with all it's death and destruction put upon US and Future generations of mutants to come. The General Public at large is too lethargic, uninformed and confused about what they see and read because it is soo convoluted. The real agenda is to gain Military Superiority by using the weather as a force multiplier by 2025. Read the Government document written in 1996…Weather as Force Multiplier by 2025. It is now just being put into effect. SRM is an excuse to continue fossil fuel and carbon business as usual and a COVER for Global Domination Using Weather as a Force Mulitplier. PERIOD.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Well done!