News Ticker

Public refuses geoengineering SRM proposals, scientists actually listen! #WINNING

geoengineering srm global climate and weather control climate viewer news climateviewer jim lee rezn8d r3zn8d

Back in 2012, I first encountered the term “geoengineering” while researching cloud-seeding and other forms of weather modification.  I came across a series of Congressional hearings regarding geoengineering and realized that the recordings on the US government Congressional website were not on YouTube, and like a good little activist I uploaded them to my channel:

  • Geoengineering I – Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention | on YouTube
    • US House of Representatives | Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
      Thursday, November 05, 2009 | Link
  • The Regulation of Geoengineering – Science and Technology Committee UK Parliament | on YouTube
    • Geoengineering HOC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
      Thursday, January 13, 2010 | Link
  • Geoengineering II – The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges | on YouTube
    • US House of Representatives | Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
      Thursday, February 04, 2010 | Link
  • Geoengineering III – Domestic and International Research Governance | on YouTube
    • US House of Representatives | Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
      Thursday, March 18, 2010 | Link

Little did I know that my video upload would drag me into a little known world, and set in motion a burning desire to know more about this “geoengineering.” A gentleman by the name of Andrew Lockey posted my video on a Google Group, and a friend of mine who saw the post came to me saying “dude they are talking about you on the geoengineering forum.” To my surprise a gentleman by the name of Ron said the following:

Russell and list:

Perhaps your comment was meant to wonder why we are being told of this three years later by Andrew.   In Andrew’s defense, let me note several other factors:

a.  This (Nov. 5, 2009) was just put up a few days ago by a Mr. Jim Lee.

b.   Looking at this will lead  you to two more hearing videos at the same Committee in the 2010 time period  (February 04 and March 18, 2010).  Several members of this list gave testimony.

c.   We may not see any other hearings for 2 more years – as the three earlier ones were held in a Democratic House.  (There was one similar hearing in the Democratic -controlled Senate last August.)   Perhaps if we talked more about the value of Congressional Hearings (I think they are valuable – but am biased because I worked for this Committee at one time) we might see one sooner.  I don’t believe this list has discussed these hearings.

d.  I listened only to a bit of each witness, but think there was nothing on albedo modification and of course nothing on “bright water”..  More important to my own interests, I rarely heard the words “carbon dioxide removal” (CDR), and nothing on the topic of biochar.  (Can anyone point me to that topic in any legislative hearings?)

e.  As I followed this thread,  I learned that Mr.  Jim Lee is clearly opposed to geoengineering.  I could find no comments by him on biochar, but he endorsed work by E.T.C. -  which group has been opposed to biochar (relying only on the “research” by one other group.   I am sorry to report that Mr. Lee is apt to be quite active and influential in opposing all parts of geoengineering.  He has a big site.

Ron

First I was flattered, then I was concerned, finally I became rabidly curious.  I began to research many of the previous threads of this forum and to my surprise all of the stars of the geoengineering world were there, commenting and sharing their research.  The glaring omission from this forum was the lack of discussion of pertinent weather modification laws already on the books.  It seemed to me that “geoengineering” was a fancy way of not calling Solar Radiation Management (SRM) “global weather control.”   How can one alter the skies worldwide, safely, when every academic body out there agrees that cloud-seeding is not well understood, AFTER 50 YEARS?  So I asked the question:

Geoengineering Group: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?

Despite the American Meteorological Society, World Meteorological Organization, and the National Research Council’s National Academy of Sciences Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate stating clearly that weather modification is an unproven science and that large scale experiments should be limited to modelling, the geoengineering community pushes ahead with their rebranded weather modification techniques:

“Although 40 years have passed since the first NAS report on weather modification, this Committee finds itself very much in concurrence with the findings of that assessment…
We conclude that the initiation of large-scale operational weather modification programs would be premature. Many fundamental problems must be answered first. It is unlikely that these problems will be solved by the expansion of present efforts, which emphasize the a posteriori evaluation of largely uncontrolled experiments. We believe the patient investigation of the atmospheric processes coupled with an exploration of the technological applications may eventually lead to useful weather modification, but we emphasize that the time-scale required for success may be measured in decades.”
National Science Foundation – Critical Issues in Weather Modification Research (2003)

“It was concluded that tests conducted so far have not yet provided either the statistical or physical evidence required to establish that the seeding concepts have been scientifically proven.”
American Meteorological Society – Critical Assessment of Hygroscopic Seeding of Convective Clouds for Rainfall Enhancement

“It should be realised that the energy involved in weather systems is so large that it is impossible to create cloud systems that rain, alter wind patterns to bring water vapour into a region, or completely eliminate severe weather phenomena. Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods) and should be treated with suspicion
“Purposeful augmentation of precipitation, reduction of hail damage, dispersion of fog and other types of cloud and storm modifications by cloud seeding are developing technologies which are still striving to achieve a sound scientific foundation.”
World Meteorological Society – Executive Summary of the WMO Statement on Weather Modification (mirror)

In 2004, in light of the findings of the National Academy of Science (11), the EAA considered eliminating funding for cloud-seeding, but eventually included $153,520 in their 2005 budget for cloud-seeding flights and an independent evaluation of previous efforts (12).
In 2007, the EAA approved cloud seeding efforts for the ninth year in a row, and for the first time the program included a method to statistically evaluate the project’s effectiveness. Four Board members voted against continuing the program, saying there was evidence that cloud seeding could actually decrease rainfall by accident, and they also had concerns about the EAA paying for scientific studies to investigate something the National Academy had already concluded doesn’t work.
The Edwards Aquifer – Cloud Seeding

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are further blurred here:
Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA) seeding

Carbon Black Aerosol (CBA) seeding

Bill Gates, the Hurricane Tamer? | Link
Scientists a step closer to steering hurricanes | Link

It’s the ultimate man vs. nature face-off.  Bill Gates, one of the most powerful men on the planet, appears to be taking on one of Mother Earth’s most fearsome forces: the hurricane.

The man who would stop hurricanes with car tyres | Link

British scientist Stephen Salter and Bill Gates patent scheme to prevent huge storms

United States Patent Application 20090177569 | Water alteration structure risk management or ecological alteration management systems and methods | Link

Inventors:
Bowers, Jeffrey A. (Kirkland, WA, US)
Caldeira, Kenneth G. (Campbell, CA, US)
Chan, Alistair K. (Stillwater, MN, US)
Gates III, William H. (Redmond, WA, US)
Hyde, Roderick A. (Redmond, WA, US)
Ishikawa, Muriel Y. (Livermore, CA, US)
Kare, Jordin T. (Seattle, WA, US)
Latham, John (Boulder, CO, US)
Myhrvold, Nathan P. (Medina, WA, US)
Salter, Stephen H. (Edinburgh, GB)
Tegreene, Clarence T. (Bellevue, WA, US)
Wood Jr., Lowell L. (Bellevue, WA, US)

Bill Gates and world's top Geoengineers collaborate on patents: Hurricane Protection for Cash!

Reducing hurricane intensity using arrays of Atmocean Inc.’s wave-driven upwelling pumps | Video Link

17th Joint Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification Association Annual Meeting (20-25 April 2008)
New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramifications
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htm
Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays of Atmocean, Inc.’s wave-driven upwelling pumps
https://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm
Philip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginis
Most climate scientists now agree that global warming will increase the intensity of tropical cyclones. It is natural to ask if any technology is able to weaken these increasingly powerful storms before landfall. Given that hurricane tracking forecasts are accurate only a few days ahead, could the technology be correctly positioned soon enough? Would the storm veer off, hitting a different region? What are the unintended environmental consequences? Is any approach technically feasible and make sense from an economics perspective?
Hurricane intensity is strongly linked to upper ocean heat content. Mathematical models show that arrays of Atmocean’s wave-driven upwelling pumps could cool the upper ocean by up to several degrees C., reducing the evaporative energy to the hurricane, and lowering peak winds by 5% to 20%. Since hurricane wind damages are proportional to the cube of windspeed, this reduction in peak wind suggests that losses caused by high winds could be reduced up to 50%. Additional savings could accrue if the storm surge is lessened, thereby reducing losses caused by flooding.
By relying on wave kinetic energy as the power source, the Atmocean wave-driven upwelling pumps naturally self-calibrate due to the much larger waves generated by a storm.
Atmocean’s upwelling arrays would be positioned beginning at 250 meters depth along the Gulf and East coast, and extend seaward in a band about 150 km wide.
If Atmocean arrays had been in position ten years ago, our storm track analysis shows they could have intercepted and quite likely reduced the intensity of 84% of US-landfalling hurricanes.

Here we have several well known names inventing a “storm protection system” that sells protection to investors.  This is also relevant due to the following comments from NOAA on modifying hurricanes:

Citing Hurricane Katrina as the basis for the project, the Hurricane Aerosol and Microphysics Program (HAMP) worked with Project Stormfury veteran Joe Golden and a panel of other experts “to test the effects of aerosols on the structure and intensity of hurricanes.” HAMP was funded under contract HSHQDC-09-C-00064 at a taxpayer price tag of $64.1 million.
In 2009, Richard Spinrad, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) assistant administrator for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), sent then DHS Program Manager for Advanced Research Projects Agency (HSARPA) William Laska an official memorandum regarding OAR’s review of a “Statement for Work” for HAMP.
While OAR recognizes that weather modification, in general, is occurring through the funding of private enterprises, NOAA does not support research that entails efforts to modify hurricanes,” Spinrad wrote.
He then went on to list all the reasons Project Stormfury was discontinued, including the inability to separate the difference in hurricane behavior when human intervention is present versus nature’s inherent unpredictability overall. Spinrad also noted that any collaboration with DHS must occur within NOAA’s mission (which Spinrad and NOAA obviously felt HAMP did not do).
NOAA houses the National Hurricane Center, the primary U.S. organization responsible for tracking and predicting hurricanes. Recent budget cuts are expected to hit NOAA’s satellite program, the heart of the organization’s weather forecasting system, by $182 million.
Note that even Spinrad admits the existence of weather modification programs as if its general, accepted knowledge. Although DHS was turned down, the agency moved ahead with their research without NOAA’s participation.

Even NOAA has learned from history.  NOAA, the AMS, WMO, and NRC are all saying the same thing, there are too many unknown variables, and large scale experimentation should not be done.
Bill Gates and company are making pumps for the gulf of Mexico to mitigate hurricanes even though NOAA wouldn’t touch that with a ten foot pole.  The Weather Modification Association operates cloud seeding/hail mitigation operations daily all over the USA.  The Chinese and Russians also have a long history of controlling their weather.  Yet I would argue the butterfly effect of so many hands in the cookie jar nets an even more uncontrollable system.  When Texas seeded clouds meet a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico above the aforementioned upwelling pumps, and Bob payed Bill Gates inc to protect his oil fields, will that hurricane now hit Tom?  Will the hurricane become stonger or weaker.  Since there is no way to know, will Tom be able to sue Bill for making a hurricane change course?
I am merely an observer in all this.  I do not understand all of the why for’s and how to’s but I do see a pattern emerging which worries me, and I don’t think the public would approve of any of this.  It is commonly argued this way:

“So, there is indeed a history of asking whether “the local inhabitants would be in favor of such schemes,” despite Fleming’s argument, and the answer, to my reading of the thin literature, is “Yes.” The simple persistence today of literally hundreds of cloud seeding projects in the U.S. and elsewhere suggests that despite anecdote and wary cloud seeders, no implacable opposition has emerged.”

I would argue that most people would vehemently disapprove of men controlling weather.  Even Donald Duck and the Smurfs understood that weather control might be a bad idea.

Weather Modification technologies that claim to achieve such large scale or dramatic effects do not have a sound scientific basis (e.g. hail canons, ionization methods, GEOENGINEERING -ed.) and should be treated with suspicion” ~WMO

The lines between weather modification and geoengineering are imaginary ones. Therefore I ask you: How will geoengineers address the statements of the AMS, WMO, and NRC on Weather Modification?
Apparently this struck a chord, as it is the second highest viewed forum post on the entire forum now (#1 was the Haida Salmon fiasco).  Ken Caldeira, Stephen Salter, and John Latham responded to my post, completely dodging the questions about weather modification laws and their hurricane modification patent.  Of course I felt like maybe I had missed something or I was off the mark, as Ken put it: You seem to be arguing against a straw man.  – First:  Of course, if climate is modified, weather is also modified. Nobody is rebranding anything.”  Several month later Ken clarified his hurricane patent involvement“I am listed as an inventor on patents related to vertically pumping water in the ocean and related to storing carbon dioxide in the ocean by dissolving carbonate minerals. I have repeatedly and publicly stated that if any of these patents are used for climate modification purposes, I will donate my share of the proceeds to non-profit charities and NGOs.” 
Why would so many organizations around the world be passing laws and coming up with compensation packages for this new word “geoengineering” when there are actually many laws, ENMOD included, already on the books regarding global climate adjustments.  I think it all comes down to semantics to circumvent relevant law.  So I went back to my studies and after a short time I put it all into a timeline and showed it to the geoengineering gang: The History of Weather Control (Interactive timeline)   [NOTE: many of the Geoengineering Group posts have broken links from my old URLs, rezn8d.com and terraforminginc.com, click here to see the current Weather Control Timeline. ]

Stephen Salter replied “The use of the word ‘weather’ rather than ‘climate’ may annoy some people.” and Ken Caldeira said:

A lot of what is on the timeline is about “weather”, so “weather modification” is an appropriate label.

As an academic, I would like to think the academic literature is a bit more important. I would include citations to Budyko, Early, etc.
The main concern with this is the inclusion of what might be irrelevancies. For example, why is HAARP important except for its relationship to conspiracy theories?

My response to his question about HAARP was not posted to the group, however if you look at the last post and scroll down, you can see my lengthy explanation.  I was surprised that Ken could possibly not know about space-weather modification, ionospheric holes and heating, dusty plasmas, or plasma-seeding, but I will take his word for it.  I am currently working on a second timeline “The History of Space-Weather Control” and removing all of the HAARP details from the aforementioned terrestrial weather control timeline, just for guys like you Ken.

Needless to say, most of my postings on the geoengineering forum have been met with opposition, unperturbed I continue to state my case, make blog posts, upload videos, and engage the public with my research.  For a myriad of reasons (which I will not go into in this article) I vehemently oppose one specific type of “geoengineering” known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM) whereby individuals would spray sulfuric acid, titanium oxide, or aluminum in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight, cool the planet, and slow global warming.  Apparently I am not alone on this one and the scientific community is actually listening!

Geoengineering Group: A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering : Nature Climate Change

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2087.html

A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering

Published online 12 January 2014

Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques.

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:
12-Jan-2014

Contact: Glenn Harris
[email protected]
44-023-805-93212
University of Southampton

Climate engineering — what do the public think?

Members of the public have a negative view of climate engineering, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the environment to counteract climate change, according to a new study.

The results are from researchers from the University of Southampton and Massey University (New Zealand) who have undertaken the first systematic large-scale evaluation of the public reaction to climate engineering.

The work is published in Nature Climate Change this week (12 January 2014).

Some scientists think that climate engineering approaches will be required to combat the inexorable rise in atmospheric CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels. Climate engineering could involve techniques that reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or approaches that slow temperature rise by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.

Co-author Professor Damon Teagle of the University of Southampton said: “Because even the concept of climate engineering is highly controversial, there is pressing need to consult the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are made.”

Lead author, Professor Malcolm Wright of Massey University, said: “Previous attempts to engage the public with climate engineering have been exploratory and small scale. In our study, we have drawn on commercial methods used to evaluate brands and new product concepts to develop a comparative approach for evaluating the public reaction to a variety of climate engineering concepts.”

The results show that the public has strong negative views towards climate engineering. Where there are positive reactions, they favour approaches that reduce carbon dioxide over those that reflected sunlight.

“It was a striking result and a very clear pattern,” said Professor Wright. “Interventions such as putting mirrors in space or fine particles into the stratosphere are not well received. More natural processes of cloud brightening or enhanced weathering are less likely to raise objections, but the public react best to creating biochar (making charcoal from vegetation to lock in CO2) or capturing carbon directly from the air.”

Nonetheless, even the most well regarded techniques still has a net negative perception.

The work consulted large representative samples in both Australia and New Zealand. Co-author Pam Feetham said: “The responses are remarkably consistent from both countries, with surprisingly few variations except for a slight tendency for older respondents to view climate engineering more favourably.”

Professor Wright noted that giving the public a voice so early in technological development was unusual, but increasingly necessary. “If these techniques are developed the public must be consulted. Our methods can be employed to evaluate the responses in other countries and reapplied in the future to measure how public opinion changes as these potential new technologies are discussed and developed,” he said.

That is what you call Winning ladies and gentlemen.  I’ld like to take this moment to thank Pat Mooney, Jim Thomas, and they guys and gals at ETC Group, Hands Off Mother Earth, Clive Hamilton, Jim Fleming, and every single confused “chemtrail conspiracy” fan that let this public perception research group have a preview of the SRM outrage to come should they press forward with plans to coat the skies.

Acknowledgement of our collective opinion is a victory, and we should high five each other.  I seriously hope to interview the Jim’s, Pat, Clive, Ken, Stephen, and John some day soon, keep your eyes peeled Climate Viewers!

High Five geoengineering SRM is a bad thing, 4 out of 5 sane people agree

 

Though I would like to think that the idea of geoengineering SRM will become a distant memory overnight, I am sure this is not over.

The world of weather modification is completely unknown to the public.  Walk into any gas station and ask people about cloud-seeding, rainmaking, hail mitigation, or snowpack augmentation, and they are going to look at you like you are talking crazy.  Nonetheless, weather modification is big business worldwide, and there are few laws in place to protect those who are harmed by sky hackers.  I read a response to the UK Geoengineering Report by Dr. James Lee from American University where he recommends a worldwide registry of cloud seeding experiments.  In light of Ken Caldeira’s obliviosity regarding HAARP and the sky heaters, I would change Dr. Lee’s registry to include all atmospheric experiments and give prior notice for liability purposes.  I am calling this draft legislation:

“The Clarity Clause”

We intend to push for greater transparency in the world of climate engineering.

  1. Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1].
  2. Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities.
  3. Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses.

Jim Lee

With geoengineering scientists and the Department of Homeland Security joining forces to tame hurricanes, the US Air Force and Navy in a weather warfare arms race with China and Russia, stock market weather derivatives, event contracts, and global companies with financial interests in The Blue Gold Rush, the sky is the limit, and stronger laws must be passed to ensure public safety.  I will continue to use my postings here at Climate Viewer News to raise awareness of atmospheric experiments and hope to make the Clarity Clause a reality so my daughter doesn’t have to fear men steering storms.

For your trolling pleasure, here are all of my posts on Ken Caldeira’s Geoengineering Group:

Stay up to date on the wacky world of weather modification on our featured research page:
Geoengineering, Weather Modification, & Global Climate Control

About Jim Lee

Creator of Climate Viewer News ● “My name is Jim. I watch the sky. I’m the ClimateViewer Guy, and I don’t want it all to die, so I say, Let it Grow!” ● Love data ● Data is essential ● Data must flow ● Data must be used ● Data is neither good nor bad ● There is no illegal data ● Data is free ● Data can not be owned ● No man, machine or system shall interrupt the flow of data ● Locking data is a crime against datanity ● Love data Contact: Website | Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | YouTube | More Posts

1 Comment on Public refuses geoengineering SRM proposals, scientists actually listen! #WINNING

  1. Awesome work, THANK YOU for doing what you do!!

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Kristen Meghan speaks out against USAF Chemtrails at Save Long Island Forum - Climate Viewer News
Add Comment Register



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*


four × 3 =