Randy Ananda (FFN) , – 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”) supersedes the former report published in 2007.
The IPCC’s First Assessment Report was published in 1990. (In case the
Summary containing that warning is changed, here is the version downloaded on Nov. 3, 2013.)
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 and potentially unknown 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.”
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 for 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.
In a world run by sanity, we would forego fossil fuels for free and
abundant solar energy, coupled with the 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 sulfate
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 smaller 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.
Developed in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Program and the
UN’s World Meteorological Organization, the IPCC maintains its silence
on military weather modification applications which continue to skew the
climate data. “Extreme weather and climate events” are linked to
climate change while no mention is made of government programs
deliberately aimed at modifying the weather and inducing earthquakes,
drought, rain, and tsunamis. Planetary weapons developed by the US have a long history.
But the IPCC remains mum on these projects, except to deny they
exist, while at the same time urging in its Summary that they must
continue or global warming will spike. The 2013 IPCC report states:
“Theory, model studies and observations suggest that some Solar
Radiation Management (SRM) methods, if practicable, could substantially
offset a global temperature rise and partially offset some other impacts
of global warming, but the compensation for the climate change caused
by greenhouse gases would be imprecise (high confidence).” [emphasis in original]
To claim that solar radiation management methods (which include
Chemtrails and HAARP-induced changes) are “unimplemented and untested”
is patently absurd, and contradicts a library of evidence.
At the very least, while the veil may be lifting
on geoengineering practices, there is still an apparent effort to
conceal the extent to which the planet is already being engineered.
Policy makers for the most part are not going to read the 2000+ page
IPCC report but will rely instead on the Summary, which (again) warns
that if solar radiation management “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.”
Climate report for the next decade? More HAARP and Chemtrails ahead.
Randy Ananda, Food Freedom News
http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/12/ipcc-warns-not-to-stop-chemtrails-aka-solar-radiation-management/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.