Here's a paper co-written by Dr Stefan Schäfer. It's mostly gibberish but the basic theme is that geoengineering in the form of SRM and marine cloud brightening, saving the planet in their eyes, is "paradoxically" likely to be resisted by the public, would you believe it?
So they stress the need for an institution to persuade the "stupid" public to accept Geoengineering.
Evidently our message has not fallen on welcoming ears.
One part of the paper is particularly interesting:
"Moreover, dynamic processes of conﬂict escalation are conceivable. Third countries negatively affected by unilateral climate engineering could resort to radical opposition in the context of the UNFCCC process, and, in a very extreme case, even adopt counter measures – ‘counter-climate engineering’, (Lane, 2010). To this end, ﬂuorocarbons could be deployed to counter the cooling effect from climate engineering, or black coal could be released to decrease the earth’s reﬂectivity (see also Horton, 2011, p. 62). "
You heard it first here, ISIS could deploy climate engineering using black coal dust to sabotage the noble geoengineers!
False flag climate terrorism!
Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here. Third countries close to the equator are not going to want further warming. Just look at the conflict in Syria, initiated by drought, courtesy of clandestine geoengineering.
I'm beginning to think we should be holding our own conference around the same time to counter this most insidious institution from ingratiating itself into the public trust.
Last Edit: May 14, 2017 11:20:47 GMT -5 by Wayne Hall
"For over half a century, economists have fixated on GDP as the first measure of economic progress, but GDP is a false goal waiting to be ousted." True. As a Biology graduate, I have always viewed this sick emphasis on growth as a form of cancer. Cancer cells cannot stop growing to the detriment of the organism as a whole.
"The challenge now is to create local to global economies that ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials – from food and housing to healthcare and political voice – while safeguarding Earth’s life-giving systems, from a stable climate and fertile soils to healthy oceans and a protective ozone layer. This single switch of purpose transforms the meaning and shape of economic progress: from endless growth to thriving in balance." It is currently designed the opposite way, not the result of accident, as if the 1% arose out of nowhere. The very purpose of destabilising the economy, climate, soil, oceans and ozone layer is to maintain and extend the dominion of the parasitic psychopaths at the top of the pyramid.
I think Kate Raworth's view is broad enough to encompass the "conspiracy theorist's" view that "extreme inequality" although a tragedy of the commons, a failure of society as a whole, is in fact a design success for the psychopaths that are allowed to dwell at the top of the food chain.
"But extreme inequality, as it turns out, is not an economic law or necessity: it is a design failure."
"Under “21st century economics” the entrepreneurs will become good guys, leaving today’s good guys at a loss because they will have to find a new role and a new justification for their existence."
The good guys simply have to expose the entrepreneur fake good guys and evict the fake good guys that have infiltrated their own ranks. Then their existence will be justified and not until.
In their fantasies, they seem to have a warm opinion of anti-geoengineering activists:
“In October 2019, one year after the first field test, events moved forward fast as a research group – which later became known as “the Safeguardians” – announced a bigger, large-scale, five-year field test to examine the reflective capacity of sulphur particles. The outcry in the media was enormous and thousands of ordinary people went onto the streets, venting fears associated with SAM. A small group of Chemtrailers also found its way to the lead scientist’s house and set fire to his car.”
SAM – Solar Albedo Modification
They also seem sure that the 2018 geoengineering experiments carried out by David Keith will be going ahead: “In October 2019, one year after the first field test,”
Symposium Blog - CE-Project - SPP Climate Engineering www.spp-climate-engineering.de The third and final full day of the symposium again included two sessions of talks. The first, entitled "A Comparative View of Climate Engineering Options and Metrics ...
On day 1 she mentions the lecture by a major figure in the field of cirrus cloud seeding.
“First, Jon Egill Kristjansson told us about the fine line a potential cloud seeder would have to walk by seeding small, homogenous ice nuclei in cirrus clouds, which then cool the planet by letting more long-wave radiation out, but making sure not to "over-seed", as injecting too many nuclei would mean reduced solar reflection and subsequently more warming. We heard that although initial modeling on cirrus cloud "thinning" in this manner indicates that the method is scientifically feasible, as one member of the audience pointed out, very little is known about its technical feasibility. The creation of small, homogenous ice nuclei in cirrus clouds could cool the planet, but a multitude of questions remain regarding how, where and under what conditions such particles can be successfully created.” Emphasis mine
He was a prominent proponent of the use of the geoengineering technology known as cirrus cloud thinning.
This is based not on Solar Radiation Management but on Thermal Radiation Management.
Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
The idea is to mitigate global warming by reducing cirrus cloud coverage. It targets longwave IR radiation rather than shortwave Solar radiation and thus differs from the usual geoengineering proposals.
The stated purpose of the seeding would be to convert the cirrus clouds from those that consist of many, smaller ice crystals that last longer to those that consist of fewer, larger ice crystals that precipitate out at a faster rate, reducing lifetime and coverage.
In this paper he also models what would happen were this form of geoengineering were to do the opposite, to convert the cirrus clouds to more, smaller crystals that precipitate out at slower rate increasing lifetime and coverage:
“As in Muri et al. , to get more confidence in our assessment of how cirrus cloud thinning influences climate, we have also carried out sensitivity runs, in which the cirrus clouds are made denser rather than thinner by reducing the ice crystal fall speeds. This can be viewed as an analogy to the “overseeding” case in Storelvmo et al. .” Emphasis mine
“Simulations with the opposite of cirrus cloud thinning, i.e., “cirrus cloud thickening” give in almost every aspect, qualitatively, the opposite results, i.e., a weaker hydrological cycle in the fixed-SST simulations, exhibiting a behavior similar to that of CO2 doubling alone.” Emphasis mine
The hydrological cycle response to cirrus cloud thinning
“Mitchell and Finnegan  proposed that the seeding material could be injected at cirrus levels by commercial aircraft. A background concentration of seeding material would build up, and cirrus clouds would form in an environment sufficiently enriched in IN for homogeneous freezing to be suppressed.” Emphasis mine
The climatic effects of modifying cirrus clouds in a climate engineering framework
A major theme of my research is that clandestine geoengineering is predominantly an ongoing form of cirrus cloud over-seeding, with the intention of warming rather than cooling.
The only way that a cooling could occur would be to reduce the quantities of emitted particulates away from the over-seeding regime to an optimum, “goldilocks” regime to reduce cirrus cloud cover and/or ice nucleating agents that force the temperature down. I believe this form occurs in selected regions such as the Eastern USA in order to fool the population.
It is interesting that Kristianson, seemed to recognize the divergence between global warming and sunspot cycles whilst accepting that there was such a correlation before the unprecedented global warming from around 1975.
He was one the many scientists to challenge Svensmark’s theory of the role of solar cycles in global warming. He turned it on its head, arguing that rather than disproving anthropogenic global warming, solar cycles helped to prove it from 1975 onwards when temperatures and solar cycles went their separate ways.
“Friis-Christensen now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone.”
“Professor Jon Egill Kristjansson, a leading geoscientist at the University of Oslo, said that the divergence between global warming and solar cycles in the late 20th century "is now undisputed". He also points out that if Svensmark is right, there should have been a decrease in cosmic rays, but in fact over the past 50 years they have, if anything, slightly increased – despite statements to the contrary in the Cern proposal of 2000.”
"Following Svensmark's mechanism, it seems that any cosmic ray explanation of current global warming can be ruled out," Egill Kristjansson said.
Post by Wayne Hall on May 14, 2017 15:06:30 GMT -5
ASIR22 - MPE 1.doc (75 KB)You may be wondering why I use the past tense when referring to Kristjansson. This leads us to the next startling piece of news.
Jon Egill Kristjansson fell to his death whilst mountaineering in Norway in August 2016.
“Jón Egill Kristjánsson, professor of meteorology at the University of Oslo, was on his way down the more than 2,000-meter-high (close to 6,800 ft) Falketind mountain in Årdal on Sunday afternoon when the accident occurred. He and his climbing partner used a cord at the height of 1,700 to 1,800 m (5,600-5,900 ft) and hooked it to an anchor that had been screwed into a rock. The anchor seems to have given way, causing Jón to fall 40 m (130 ft). He was an experienced mountaineer.”
He died before his most recent work, authored along with Ben Kravitz,
and Alan Robock, was published.
“One of our authors, Jón Egill Kristjánsson, tragically passed away in a hiking accident on 14 August 2016. We dedicate this article to his memory and to his immense body of insightful, influential work on cloud modeling, aerosol-cloud interactions, and, most recently, cirrus thinning. His legacy of scientific contribution is indisputable, and those of us who had the privilege of working with him will miss him greatly.” Emphasis mine
Understanding How Climate Engineering Can Offset Climate Change
He was also co-authoring a paper that put forward the theory that Norwegian painter, Edvard Munch’s painting “The Scream” was based on the experience of an extraordinary “Mother of Pearl” cloud formation, otherwise known as a Polar Stratospheric Cloud. These clouds, similar in nature to cirrus clouds but higher up, are heavily implicated in my writings with the deliberate warming of the Arctic region. Kristjánsson was also an expert on these clouds.
Now, I am by no means a “coincidence theorist” but I don’t wish to sound overly dramatic. Even so, I cannot but wonder if this death of a prominent geoengineering scientist is not in any way connected with the mysterious deaths of the Arctic scientists in 2013 that led Peter Wadhams, the expert on Arctic ice, to publicly speculate that they may have been assassinated. I go into more detail in my article ASIR 22 – Murder on the Polar Express but here is an extract:
The CryoSat study, carried out by a team of scientists led by University College London in 2013, deserves to go down in the annals of history for being unique in more ways than one.
The co-author, Katharine Giles, shortly after the paper was published in early 2013, was killed in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London.
This event, tragedy though it was, would not stand out were it not for the fact that her closest colleague and mentor, Professor Seymour Laxon, working on the same study, had died on New Year’s Day of the same year, after suffering brain damage in a fall the day before.
These two deaths and one other, that of Oceanographer, Dr Tim Boyd killed by a lightning strike in Argyll, Scotland on the 27th January, compelled a Cambridge Professor to make the remarkable claim that they may have all been assassinated.
This Professor was none other than Dr Peter Wadhams, the leading expert on Arctic ice, head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, and member of the AMEG group.
Climate Scientist Fears Murder By Hitman Date: 25/07/15 Ben Webster, The Times
A Cambridge professor has said that assassins may have murdered scientists who were seeking to reveal how rapidly global warming was melting Arctic ice.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics, said he believed that he had also been targeted but had a narrow escape after a driver of an unmarked lorry tried to push his car off the M25.
Professor Wadhams faced criticism this week after a study contradicted his prediction that Arctic ice was melting so fast that it could all disappear this summer. Asked by The Times for his response to the discovery that the total volume of ice grew 40 per cent in 2013, Professor Wadhams insisted that there was still an outside possibility of the Arctic being ice-free this year. He then said there were only four people in Britain who were “really leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic” and he was one. The others, he said, had died in early 2013. He said: “It seems to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to look accidental.” He named the three as Seymour Laxon of University College London, Katharine Giles, a climate change scientist who worked with Professor Laxon at UCL, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for Marine Science. Professor Laxon died after falling downstairs at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex; Dr Giles died in a collision with a lorry while cycling to work in London; and police said they believed that Dr Boyd was killed by lightning as he walked near a loch in Scotland. Professor Wadhams said that about the same time he was driving on the M25 late at night when the lorry hit his car. “This guy showed definite evidence of malevolence. He was trying to run me right off the road.” He said his car was damaged but he managed to get home and called the police the next day. He was told no action could be taken. “I just thought what is going on here? Somebody is trying to do in people who are working on ice thickness in Britain.” He said: “If it was some kind of death squad, you don’t expect that with something like climate change. I know oil companies have been giving lots and lots of money to . . . climate change denialist organisations but you don’t expect them to kill people.” Fiona Strawbridge, Professor Laxon’s partner, said that she had seen similar claims by “ridiculous conspiracy theorists” on the internet but she was certain his death was an accident. She said that she knew Dr Giles and it was clear that her death was also an accident.
Tim Boyd’s death followed the death of his young colleague, Christopher Bell just a over a week earlier in an avalanche.
“The father-of-two worked at the Scottish Association of Marine Science (Sams) in Oban.
It is the second tragedy to hit the association in just over a week.
Christopher Bell, 24, a PhD student who worked at Sams, was one of four people killed in the Glencoe avalanche on January 19.”