Author: admin

SOURCE: Geoengineeringwatch.org

Collective efforts are essential If we are to have any chance of exposing and halting global climate engineering operations in time to salvage what yet remains of Earth’s life support systems. All are needed in the battle to sound the alarm on the critical issue of climate engineering.
DW

Dylan Jones writes:

“I was watching James Corbett’s “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” and was on the chapter entitled “Technocracy” featuring the editor of Technocracy News when I received these e-mails.

“The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first. Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong. The questions are how did the false assumption develop and persist?”

Tim Ball”

Dylan continues: 

Well I thought about what Ball was saying, again, as I have mulled through this before. What is interesting is what Ball leaves out:

 What scientists actually found was that CO2 feedback in response to orbital changes  amplifies that effect so that 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

 “The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.”

 https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

“Other greenhouse gases” must surely include changes in the level of water vapour and cloud cover along with the ice sheet loss.

Ball refers to Anthony Watts as if he backs up his claims:

“Anthony Watts’ 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.”

“Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius asked the important question “Is the mean temperature of the ground in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere?” He went on to become the first person to investigate the effect that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would have on global climate. The question was debated throughout the early part of the 20th century and is still a main concern of Earth scientists today.”

His calculations showed that the “temperature of the Arctic regions would rise about 8 degrees or 9 degrees Celsius, if the carbonic acid increased 2.5 to 3 times its present value.”

 “It is important to note that Arrhenius was not very concerned with rising carbon dioxide levels at the time, but rather was attempting to find an explanation for high latitude temperature changes that could be attributed to the onset of the ice ages and interglacial periods.”

“By 1904, Arrhenius became concerned with rapid increases in anthropogenic carbon emissions and recognized that “the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may, by the advances of industry, be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” 

He eventually made the suggestion that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to the burning of fossil fuels could be beneficial, making the Earth’s climates “more equable,” stimulating plant growth, and providing more food for a larger population. This view differs radically from current concerns over the harmful effects of a global warming caused by industrial emissions and deforestation. Until about 1960, most scientists dismissed the notion as implausible that humans could significantly affect average global temperatures. Today, however, we know that carbon dioxide levels have risen about 25 percent—a rate much faster than Arrhenius first predicted—and average global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degrees Celsius.”

Watts does not argue that Arrhenius was mistaken in his assessment that CO2 was a greenhouse gas that trapped heat. He argues that Arrhenius held that the CO2 rise due to combustion of fossil fuel would be beneficial. Finally Watts, like most skeptics, argues that Arrhenius overestimated the warming effect of CO2 not that it has no warming effect at all as Ball insists.

He also falls back on the “Friends of Science”:

“The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work.”

“Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate. He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it.”

“The IPCC has now lowered its estimates as well to be within range of Arrhenius’ revised view. This would give the range as 1.6 to 3.9 ℃, but the same qualifiers persist.”

As far as I know, a good approximation to this range was predicted by Roger Revelle in the 60’s. No “lowering of estimates” there.

Some scientists rejected Arrhenius’s view. Nobody remembers them, but this is Ball’s “evidence” that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Arrhenius himself made the link between the feedback effect of CO2 warming on water vapour levels:

“In these calculations, I completely neglected the presence of water vapour emitted into the atmosphere. This acts in two ways: In part, the water vapour reduces the radiation in the same way as does the CO2, whereby the absorption of CO2 comprises a larger fraction of the earth’s radiation then if the water vapour would be removed from the atmosphere. In part, the temperature causes an increase in water vapour emitted into the atmosphere, on account of an increase in the quantity of CO2, with the subsequent rise in temperature.”

He didn’t retract his conviction that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, he acknowledged that the feedback effect on water vapour would be necessary to amplify the temperature increase to the predicted range.

Ball again:

“The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero. This means Arrhenius colleagues who “rejected any effect of CO2 at all” are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.”

Again, Ball presents no real evidence that this is the case, he just insists that such evidence exists, but we never get to see it.

In my view, it is a waste of time debating whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not, along with whether the earth is flat or if nuclear weapons are a hoax.

CO2 is about life yes, but so is H20, and that is definitely a greenhouse gas as Ball loves to remind us. I agree though that water is where the action is. However I have seen nothing really that refutes the notion that CO2 warms the planet. It’s all about the degree to which it does that:

1/3 Global Warming due to Anthropogenic activity – 1.5 degrees Celsius

CO2 emissions, deforestation, Methane emissions etc

2/3 due to “feedback effects” – Clandestine Climate Modification – 3 degrees Celsius – enough to “destabilize human civilization”

“At that point, it might be too late to prevent permanent, dangerous feedback loops from kicking in.”

“This is the biggest problem humanity has ever faced, and we’ve barely even begun to address it effectively. On our current pace, factoring in current climate policies of every nation on Earth, the best independent analyses show that we are on course for warming of about 3.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, enough to extinguish entire ecosystems and destabilize human civilization.”

Humans didn’t exist the last time there was this much CO2 in the air

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/humans-didn%e2%80%99t-exist-the-last-time-there-was-this-much-co2-in-the-air/ar-AAx0dvw?ocid=ientp

You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming proponents that disagree with each other, disagree about the extra 2/3, the 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback.

You will find that most anthropogenic CO2 global warming skeptics (the actual scientists) usually also disagree (with the proponents) around the issue of the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius that will result towards the end of this century as consequence of cloud feedback and not about the warming due to CO2. In other words, they don`t accept the clouds will amplify the initial CO2 warming to threaten humanity. For them 1.5 degree Celsius by the end of this century is acceptable as we are already half way there.

Substitute cloud feedback for Clandestine Climate Modification that will intentionally ensure the extra 2/3, 3 degrees Celsius and destabilize human civilisation.

The skeptics are right that genuine cloud feedback wouldn’t cause the threat alone but they are unaware of or ignoring the Clandestine Climate Modification.

The proponents are observing the behaviour of clouds and water vapour and extrapolating but they are unaware of or ignoring the fact that such behaviour is characteristic of Clandestine Climate Modification, intentional cloud forcing rather than merely cloud feedback.

It makes sense therefore to concentrate on the 2/3rds warming due to Clandestine Climate Modification and convince either side of it as the missing piece to the puzzle rather than waste time on the 1/3 which would not pose a threat to human civilisation alone.

This factor would also render the notion of Climate Justice entirely valid as it does indeed come down to class warfare, the rich versus the poor.

Social Engineering will be sure to play a part:

“Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy.”

Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

Climate Modification really is the missing link that explains why the paradoxical plan of the Oiligarchs, who are really the ContrOligarchs, as set forth in James Corbett’s excellent “How Big Oil Conquered The World” and “Why Big Oil Conquered The World” is to divest from fossil fuels and phase into alternative energy sources, and transform themselves into the “saviours of humanity”.

Dylan

---

Comment from Marvin Herndon

Some of the explanations are here: http://www.nuclearplanet.com/Geoengineering_Scientific_Articles.html

---

Comment from Todd Schlesinger

The story they are telling is that temp would rise a few degrees in 80 years? It doesn’t explain the climate change we have already seen here in MD, over the 3 years since the spraying went berserk. No more Winter season, very little snow, all 4 seasons out of whack.  Major tree die-off, majority of animals in the adjacent forest vanished, greyish  dust visible on  car and outdoors area.   They made it warm here without the CO2.  And the Sun is now a whitish color; guessing the O3 layer collapsed.   

---

Comment from Elana Freeland
Ho hum, I’ve known this since before the self-important 2015 Paris Conference. Another globalist scam. CO2 is about LIFE, and whatever life the global elites and their phalanx of complicit scientists can’t destroy, they will milk and enslave so as to pile up disaster capitalist profits for themselves and their weaponized Space Age.

---

 Contribution from Harold Saive

CO2 IS NOT A GREENHOUSE GAS – Tim Ball:

The Evidence Proves That CO2 is Not a Greenhouse Gas

The CO2 error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them. ⁃ TN Editor

https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/

 

Source: Defend Democracy Press

by Wayne Hall

The United Nations Climate Change Conferences are held each year in the framework of the relevant treaty that was opened for signature in 1992. This treaty aims at addressing climate change by imposing on all treaty signatories the obligation to reduce the emissions of the gases that are said to cause the greenhouse phenomenon. It requires the industrialized countries – in contrast to the developing countries – to achieve stabilization at the levels of 1990. The distinction between industrialized and developing countries derives from the assertion that the industrialized countries are responsible for the greater part of global emissions of greenhouse gases and also that they possess the institutional and financial ability  to limit them. As a member  of the European Union, Greece is included among the industrialized countries.

The first UN climate change conference was held in Berlin in 1995. The most recent, the 23rd, is being held at this moment (12^th November 2017) in Bonn. The Presidency this year is held by Fiji. At the UN climate change conferences the presence of civil society has been conspicuous from the outset in the sense that there is participation by NGOs concerned with environmental problems, and indeed not only environmental problems but also problems of equality, relations between the sexes, etc. Many of the activists are committed to what is known as climate justice, something evidently based on a supposition of deliberate human intervention in the climate, because if the climate is determined by Mother Nature, or even a combination of Mother Nature and the unintentional effects of  industrial development, it appears pointless to speak of justice, because presumably Mother Nature follows her own rules which are not dictated by the desires of human beings.

Apart from the influence of NGOs on the discussions there is an additional factor, which is noted by the organization Carbon Trade Watch, a group opposed to emissions trading, one of the central elements of UN methodology for the climate.

According to Carbon Trade Watch in the years that have passed since the first conference in Berlin we see the discussions moving further away from identification of the real causes of climate change, along with a spiraling of the negative effects, influencing ever wider areas and ever larger populations. Each year we see a more powerful presence of big corporations and a weaker influence of those suffering the damage.

The climate crisis has been transformed into an opportunity for new businesses, new sources of profit. Climate policies foster the financialization of nature. The elements of nature – carbon dioxide, water,  biodiversity, become measurable units, which can be bought and sold and also become the object of stock exchange speculation.

Of course the NGOs oppose these developments, and the result is that the United Nations conferences have become a battlefield between large and small vested interests. Because they are increasingly losing the ability to influence developments at governmental level, the organizations that are being funded to participate in the conferences increasingly resort to the media, staging public relations stunts which sometimes resemble reality shows.

The growing distance between the summit and the base was addressed initially through stricter policing. At Cancun in 2010 and Durban in 2011, according to the activist Anne Petermann, official permission was required for every demonstration and protest. Even wearing a T-shirt with an unacceptable slogan on it was enough to get oneself thrown out of the conference. By the time of the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris a system of apartheid had grown up with a geographical distance of kilometres separating the officials on one hand from civil society on the other.

The greatest turmoil was produced by the functions that had maximum coverage from the media. If we can judge from the experiences of some of us in Paris, where we demonstrated around an issue that is buried totally and systematically by the television and the press, namely climate manipulation, the way in which we were treated by the police was finally more polite and their interest greater than in the case of subjects that had attracted the interest of the media, where both the demonstrators and the police were more aggressive and more closed.

As indicated, at this year’s conference in Bonn, Fiji has the presidency, and the focus of media attention was on the Pacific Climate Warriors. The aim of the Pacific Climate Warriors is abolition of fossil fuels. In October 2014 they blockaded the harbour of Newcastle in Australia, the country’s largest coal exporting port.  Last week, to return to the present, the Pacific Climate Warriors blocked the entrance to a lignite mine in the Rhineland in Germany.

Both in Australia and in Germany, not to mention other countries, the turn to renewable energy sources, chiefly from sun and wind, is facing many problems, which are not exclusively attributable to political pressure from the oil and mining lobbies. The Australian state that has made the greatest turn to renewables, particularly wind parks, now has the most expensive electricity in the world, and is plagued by blackouts. Many poor families can no longer afford to have electricity in their homes. Those who have their backs to the wall politically are not just the Greens and the Labor Party but also the big centre-right parties that have supported the turn to renewable energy sources. The nuclear lobby, which had been defeated in Australia on the electricity generation front, is staging a comeback and entering the fray with powerful arguments against industrial wind farms and solar installations.

In Germany both nuclear energy and wind farms have lost the confidence of the public, with the result that new lignite burning power stations are being built. The arguments against wind power are focused on the damage that ultrasound can do to human health,  and also to bats, which it attracts, to be killed by the rotors, and then  the damage that is being caused to wide expanses of unspoilt countryside, and the fact that wind parks do not sufficiently reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

One Carbon Trade Watch activist Ivonne Yanez from Ecuador even floats the idea that the policy of leaving 70% of fossil fuels in the ground may be supported by a section of the oil lobby with a view to securing higher prices.

In any case, in the final analysis although Greece is a member of the European Union and regarded as an industrialized country and not a developing country, the fact is that we are not in the same category as those who can fund the Pacific Climate Warriors to stage demonstrations in Australian industrial cities. We are in the same category as these people from so-called underdeveloped countries who tell us that that their property Is under threat, their land, their survival in their present way of life. And I hope that we are not going to be satisfied with staging reality shows and the politics of the spectacle. We want to be citizens with functioning institutions and with the ability to defend ourselves and defend genuine sustainable development.

SOURCE (Greek): http://tvxs.gr/news/sci-tech/giati-na-mas-psekasoyn-tha-sosei-ton-planiti

In the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 the leaders of around 200 states decided to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases so that the temperature of the planet would fall to levels slightly higher than before the industrial age. If the plan does not succeed the dangerous consequences of climate change will be irreversible and obvious by the end of the century.

Two degrees above the level at which we find ourselves today is regarded by scientists as the tolerable ceiling for global warming. If that is exceeded extreme weather phenomena will be experienced: storms, droughts and a rise in the sea level are some of them. The consequences will be shortages of food and water and an increase in emigration as the planet becomes inhospitable. If we don’t change, this ceiling will be exceeded by 2050..

The leaderships of the countries and the great global polluters, with the attitudes they have adopted to date, can only be described as anything but trustworthy. Trump’s decision to withdraw the USA from the Agreement is the most characteristic.

Given all this, scientists in recent years have put forward many different ideas. One of them is geoengineering, that is to say manipulation of the climate which theoretically could cool the planet and stabilize the environment. There are two kinds of geoengineering: the first has to do with removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. At an industrial level this is already happening, but it is not enough to deal with the massive levels of emissions that are recorded every day. The second has to do with solar radiation management. In this more radical scenario theoretically the level of solar radiation being absorbed by the planet could be reduced by reflecting it away.

One way that this could be done, according to studies, is by spraying reflective particles in the upper levels of the atmosphere. This scheme is based on the cooling potential of volcanoes. The sulphur dioxide that is emitted during eruptions leads to the formation of sulphuric acid, which reflects the solar radiation and cools the planet. But finally the sulphuric acid could destroy the ozone layer, leaving the earth totally vulnerable to solar radiation.

Another solution, less dangerous, is – according to the experts – the reduction of high altitude cloud cover. Clouds that are formed at very high altitudes do not reflect much solar radiation but on the contrary cause a greenhouse effect. The higher they are the more intense the heating. And the warmer the environment the higher the level at which the clouds form. If sulphuric or nitric acid is introduced into these clouds their volume will decrease and they will not have such a heating effect on the surface of the earth. But if the spraying is not conducted carefully it could lead to the formation of more such clouds, with the result that rather than being cooled the planet will be further heated.

Because of these dangers, scientists emphasize that any such scheme must be implemented under very specific conditions, both chronologically and spatially, so as to have optimum effect. One such example would be ice at the poles, so as to stop the melting. But to date these schemes are being questioned by many and even the scientists that support them say that more research is needed.

Comment from W.H.: This “information” from Kouloglou. Up until now the criticism of “chemtrails” activists has mostly focused on the fact that the spraying is not a proposal but a reality. But perhaps the fraud is even worse in the sense that the spraying does not mitigate the global warming but in fact causes it.

Comment from Dylan Jones: Geoengineering is a proposal intended to cover over retrospectively the fact that spraying has been occurring since the onset of global warming and is most certainly intended to heat the planet rather than cool it.

It is an inverse version of the form of Geoengineering known as Thermal Radiation Management which involves the deployment of artificial particles (not sulphuric nor nitric acid) in optimum numbers so as to induce precipitation of higher clouds. In the ongoing reality an overseeding regime of too many particles has been established that increases higher cloud cover and consequent warming.

The form of Geoengineering known as Solar Radiation Management involving the spraying of sulphates to reflect sunlight would only be effective over regions close to the equator.

Finally, the Paris agreement cap of 2 degrees was an increase from pre-industrial levels not from today and if you think extreme weather, shortages of food and water and migration is a problem only looming in the future, you need to look out the window.