Part 2 - Reverse Geoengineering
"Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters . . . will unfold on a scale difficult to imagine at present. . . . this will merge each nation’s affairs with those of every other, more thoroughly than the threat of a nuclear or any other war would have done."
John von Neumann
What follows is a brief outline of the love affair between oligarchs and the notion of an engineered climate which has been ongoing for over a hundred years.
1896: Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, the first to link carbon dioxide emissions with global warming:
“…thought that global warming would be a boon to humanity and therefore fossil fuel burning should be encouraged…”
1912: New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200-mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth
1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberia.
1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.
1945: The great mathematician, John von Neumann held a meeting in Princeton and agreed with the scientists present that intentional weather modification was indeed possible and that in addition to the arms race with the Soviet Union, there would also be an equally important race to control the climate and the weather. First however, computer modelling of weather systems would be necessary.
That year, Dr. V.K. Zworykin, also based in Princeton,
1946: Vincent Schaefer, Irving Langmuir, and Bernard Vonnegut, working for General Electric, discovered and developed Cloud Seeding.
Two means of cloud seeding were discovered:
An industry of commercial “cloud seeders” sprang up which has courted controversy to this day.
Cloud seeding is not snake oil. It has always worked. The problem is that it robs Peter to pay Paul. If you force it to rain somewhere, somewhere else is not going to get that rain – drought. Likewise if you prevent it from raining somewhere, somewhere else is going to get too much rain – flooding.
The two opposing types of Cloud Seeding involve:
Predictability and ethicality are the real limitations. Attempts to play down the effectiveness of cloud seeding are really a cynical means of avoiding legal liability for drought and floods.
Obviously, this double-edged sword has military applications which are likely to remain under the radar.
In 1953, a President’s Advisory Committee on Weather Control was established to determine the extent to which the United States should experiment with, engage in, or regulate activities designed to control weather conditions.
They pursued the idea of cloud seeding but also other means such as injecting materials into the atmosphere or dispersing them on land to alter the heat budget.
A US Navy officer, Capt. H.T. Orville, became chairman of this Advisory Committee.
He reported that the USSR “had conducted numerous unpublicized but still detectable experiments apparently aimed at finding ways to speed melting of polar icecaps; and has even offered to join the United States in a project to turn the Arctic Ocean into a sort of warm water lake by melting the polar icecap.”
These proposals attracted the attention of presidential candidate John F. Kennedy who remarked that the idea was worth exploring as a joint project with the Soviets, and the discussion continued into the 1970s.
1955: in a Fortune magazine article, von Neumann wrote:
“Microscopic layers of colored matter spread on an icy surface, or in the atmosphere above one, could inhibit the reflection-radiation process, melt the ice, and change the local climate.”
“What power over our environment, over all nature, is implied!"
“…forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined…”
In 1958, at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program, a direction in which the military had already embarked, one of the most prolific researchers, Harry Wexler, discussed the feasibility, although not the advisability of the following:
To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C
“by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane. Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5 (source)
The target global temperature increase of 1.7°C is curiously close to the limit of 2°C agreed during the Paris Climate Conference.
It was during the period of the 1960’s that the research of Roger Revelle confirmed that carbon dioxide had built up in the atmosphere and it was officially recognised that it potentially posed a global problem. Later Revelle would estimate that the earth would undergo a 1-3 °C increase in average temperature, with the higher latitudes warming at a greater rate than the equator, mostly in winter, in the next century.
Recall that US collaboration was still ongoing with Russian scientists on the three major potential methods to warm the climate rather than cool it:
Melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice.
Creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat.
Diverting warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions.
These schemes were taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959.
In 1961, President Kennedy, in a statement to the United Nations, proposed “further cooperative efforts between all nations in weather prediction and eventually in weather control.” In response, the UN called on all of its member states to join in a cooperative world weather program.
The same year, he gave a speech from the Waldorf–Astoria hotel entitled “The President and the Press.” Part of it is transcribed below:
“The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”
Again that year, the most prominent Russian climatologist, Mikhail Budyko, speculated how the global climate might be deliberately warmed by spreading dark dust or soot across the Arctic snow and ice. This would lower the albedo and warm the air, exposing the dark underlying soil and ocean water, absorbing yet more solar radiation and accelerate warming. The ice might would not reform according to this theory and would lead to a beneficial alteration (from Budyko’s point of view) in the climate of the planet, particularly Siberia, and render the Arctic Ocean navigable.
In early 1962, the great meteorologist and Chief of Scientific Services at the US Weather Bureau, Harry Wexler gave a speech - “On the Possibilities of Climate Control” to fellow scientists.
It was Wexler who had established the Mauna Loa Observatory and supported Dave Keeling’s measurements of CO2. He had also written on peaceful use of satellites and weather control for JFK.
Just before publishing his lecture later that year, he died of a sudden heart attack whilst on vacation.
Wexler had spoken about damage to the ozone layer from rocket exhaust and atomic experiments in the upper atmosphere. He also spoke of deliberate attempts to damage the ozone layer in order to alter the radiation balance for climate manipulation or warfare.
Project Starfish in 1962 and before that, Project Argus in 1958 had involved detonating nuclear bombs in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth's surface. This “injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the ionosphere to cause world-wide effects. The electrons travelled back and forth along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial "aurora" when striking the atmosphere near the North Pole.”
Scientists today have confirmed that the solar wind, made up of energetic protons and electrons and spiralled along magnetic force lines to the poles, plays a role in destroying ozone by enhancing the generation of Nitric Oxide. The nitrogen gases are further mixed, by means of the polar stratospheric winds, with the ozone layer.
In the same year, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) set up a special working group, planned by Wexler himself. It was to become World Weather Watch (WWW) in the following year, 1963.
In August of that year, claims were made that a nuclear bomb had been detonated either underneath the ice of Antarctica or in the upper atmosphere above it. This seems to have been suppressed in the media by the Whitehouse until after the nuclear test ban treaty was signed two days later by the US and Russia in Moscow. President Kennedy called for inspection of Russian bases in Antarctica under terms of the 1959 treaty.
In November of that year, Kennedy was assassinated. The day after, the US Navy admitted that a nuclear blast had been detected but this was lost amongst the assassination coverage.
The circumstances surrounding this secret nuclear bomb test in Antarctica are covered from 35:00 onwards in this fascinating video from Truthstream Media:
Had this blast been a deliberate attempt to alter the upper atmosphere in order to facilitate warming of the poles? If so, who had been responsible? Russia? The US? A joint project? Had Kennedy been stirring up trouble? Had Wexler, having outlined these proposals without recommending them and about to make public his lectures?
It was in 1965 that the advisers of the new President, Lyndon Johnson, made their suggestions as to how the warming predicted by Roger Revelle could be mitigated should it get out of hand.
It is important to see this concern with mitigation in context, subsumed as part of an overall desire for a global warming whether due to deliberate climate interventions or due to use of fossil fuels.
That year, J.O. Fletcher, a US scientist, unconcerned with mitigation, outlined the three basic approaches to warming the planet:
Three basic approaches have been proposed (Fletcher, 1965): (1) influencing the surface reflectivity of the ice to cause more absorption of solar heat; (2) large-scale modification of Arctic cloud conditions by seeding; (3) increasing the inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean."
In 1966, Budyko and his colleagues were invited over to a conference held by the University of California and the Rand Corporation. Scientists from the US, Canada and Norway were present. He discussed his idea that the heat balance of the high latitudes was different to the low latitudes.
The same year, Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, Chairman of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification, referring to Revelle and Suess’s paper, wrote that:
“Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.” Gordon MacDonald “Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment.
In his article written in 1968 and speculating on warfare in the not too distant future, Macdonald outlined a potential method for inducing global cooling and concluded that the beneficiary of such a program would be some landlocked equatorial country.
“Who would stand to benefit from such application? The logical candidate, would be a landlocked equatorial country. An extended glacial period would ensure near-Arctic conditions over much of the temperate zone, but temperate climate with abundant rainfall would be the rule in the present tropical regions.”
Whilst the tropical regions would enjoy a temperate climate with abundant rainfall, the temperate regions would no longer be temperate, but would suffer near-Arctic conditions.
How To Wreck The Environment
by Gordon J. F. MacDonald U.S.A.
What if we turned this hypothesis on its head? What if instead of some landlocked country, the major countries of the northern temperate zones decided to collude to influence the climate to their advantage? After all it is clear that the global power base that would have the technology, is in this region not in some “equatorial landlocked country”.
They wouldn’t be interested in inflicting near Arctic conditions upon themselves but the opposite, the kind of warm climate that enabled the Vikings to once settle Greenland. They would see the far northern climes opened up to commerce and exploitation for their vast resources.
The landlocked equatorial regions would suffer intense heat and drought whilst others would suffer catastrophic flooding.
In other words, a global warming would surely be the desired outcome for the global power brokers. Is this in fact, what we have seen in their scientific literature and what we are seeing in the world today?
1969 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov:
“Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s Proposed Method of Melting the Arctic Ice Cap Borisov’s idea: If the Arctic ice is once melted much less of the sun’s radiation will be reflected out into space and therefore the arctic ice cap will not re-form. An ice-free Arctic Ocean would be a great boon to oceanic shipping, especially between Europe and East Asia. Much land in northern Canada and Siberia would be freed of permafrost and made suitable for agriculture. Borisov believed that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would lead to increased evaporation of water and hence increased rainfall worldwide, including the region of Sahara Desert leading to grass growing there. Borisov considers all of the impacts of the melting of the Arctic ice cap to be beneficial. He asserts that the melting of the Greenland ice cap would raise sea levels at a rate of only 1.5 to 2 mm per year.” Emphasis mine
We now approach that remarkable period in time where the proposals outlined previously seemed to become a reality. This will be the subject of parts 3 and 4.