Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
Thanks to @CalciteAsh for the article: Climate Change and Geoengineering: Artificially Cooling Planet Earth by Thinning Cirrus Clouds by Hannah Osborne, July 21, 2017
After millions of concerned citizens resoundingly denounced the airline industry for clouding their skies a stunning admission from the scientific community: if climate engineers melt cirrus clouds we may never need to do Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), a form of Geoengineering Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to cool the planet. This statement follows Chuck Long’s statement from NOAA’s Earth Systems Research Lab that aircraft are “accidentally geoengineering” the planet with ice haze. With masterfully planned verbal ninjitsu these scientists conflate weather modification and geoengineering, cloud seeding and cloud thinning, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN, aerosols, or cloud seeds) suddenly become ice-nucleating particles (INP). I will now clear the air on the shady nature of Cirrus Cloud Seeding and help you understand the seriousness of Cirrus Clouds!
Back in 2015 I attended the EPA’s first-ever hearing on regulating jet aircraft emissions in Washington DC. Several environmental lobbying groups had sued to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from planes under the Clean Air Act saying that CO2 “endangered public health.” In my speech I said: Forget CO2 and greenhouse gases, we are concerned about metal particulates and cloud production.
These two quotes really stood out for me:
“Contrails formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be causing more climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft since the start of aviation.” 
“A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet.” 
These two research papers showed a gaping hole in computer models: aerosols, how they form clouds, and their effects on the climate.
2013 “Aerosol-cloud interactions are one of the main uncertainties in climate research.” 
We know that climate change is very much tied to the stars. Our Sun’s solar cycle has a very important role in cloud formation and subsequently global temperature. This is starting to gain acceptance in the scientific world, however Electric Universe researchers have known this for quite some time. Check out my conversation with ADAPT 2030‘s David DuByne on the topic of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR), solar cycles, and noctilucent clouds for even more info on this fascinating topic.
“Our clouds take their orders from the stars,” says the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. His documentary links galactic cosmic rays and their role in cloud production and comes to the conclusion:
“clouds are the main driver of climate change on Earth.” … “relation between cosmic ray flux and cloud cover should also be of importance in an explanation of the correlation between solar cycle length and global temperature, that has been found.” 
Watch his documentary here:
Jasper Kirkby from CERN’s CLOUD project broke new scientific ground when he realized that trees make aerosols that can act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) or cloud seeds. CERN’s team created clouds in a chamber with just tree-borne aerosols and galactic cosmic rays (GCR). Tree-based cloud seeding was not accounted for in geoengineering and climate models:
Jasper Kirkby, a CERN particle physicist, and his colleagues introduced a mixture of natural oxidants present in the air and an organic hydrocarbon released by coniferous plants. The hydrocarbon was rapidly oxidized. The only other ingredient allowed in the chamber was cosmic rays
the result means climate modelers can’t assume that the ancient past was much less cloudy simply because there was less sulfur dioxide. If ancient cloud cover was closer to today’s levels, the increase in the cloud-cooling effect due to human pollution could also be smaller—which means that Earth was not warming up so much in response to increased greenhouse gases alone. In other words, Earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, and it may warm up less in response to future carbon emissions…
“This really does touch on the Gaia hypothesis,” he says, referring to the theory that Earth’s life behaves as a single organism that tends to preserve itself. “It’s a beautiful mechanism for trees to control their environment.”
Judith Curry – The cloud-climate conundrum
The Lorax absolutely loves this revelation. #PlantTrees
In essence, climate computer modelers (programmers, and poor ones at that) thought that industrial pollution made the skies more cloudy today than in the past. They were wrong. They were also very wrong about whether cirrus clouds cooled or heated the planet for 50 years, let alone how much.
It gets worse for the poor cirrus clouds:
- Cloud blanket warms up melting icecap
- Greenland ice sheet melts more when it’s cloudy
- Clouds enhance Greenland ice sheet meltwater runoff
- Clouds, like blankets, trap heat and are melting the Greenland Ice Sheet
Now that the cat is out of the bag the question has to be asked: what is “their” plan?
The Contrail Conundrum: What To Do About Cirrus Clouds?
Did the EPA listen to my warnings in 2015? You betcha. So did the Obama administration, the ICAO, and the rest of the world. Working overtime during an extremely contentious election, the Powers that Be gathered, wrote an agreement to use biofuels for “contrail control” and dropped the EPA lawsuit. Once again, the airline industry skirted the law:
- July 25, 2016 – BREAKING: EPA To Limit Greenhouse Gases From Airplanes
- July 31, 2016 – White House releases “Federal Alternative Jet Fuel Research and Development Strategy”
- September 3, 2016 – China, U.S. and Europe pledge support for global aviation emissions pact
- September 12, 2016 – Greens move to dismiss EPA lawsuit over airplane emissions
Ulrich Schumman, one of the world’s top researchers on contrail-induced cirrus clouds made this statement in 2010 to the ICAO:
Both aspects (soot and flight routing) offer the potential for aviation to reduce the climate impact of aviation (less soot emissions, LESS WARMING and MORE COOLING CONTRAILS, predictable for OPERATIONAL PLANNING) 
This statement piqued my curiosity so I asked Dr. Rangasayi Halthore, the head of the FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI), what did Schumman mean?
His response made my jaw hit the floor:
Contrails during day cause cooling because of reflecting of sunlight back into space. During night, they trap infrared heat causing heating. So it is a balance between the two time intervals. We would like to have more CICs (contrail-induced cirrus clouds) during day and none during night. FAA Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night
So imagine my lack of surprise when I read this, dated July 21, 2017:
If the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate effect of cirrus thinning can be enhanced. For that, only the long-wave warming effect of cirrus clouds should be targeted, and their solar effect should be avoided. This can be achieved if seeding is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime seeding. 
Climate Change and Geoengineering: Artificially Cooling Planet Earth by Thinning Cirrus Clouds
Cirrus cloud seeding at night or in the Arctic could be deployed and, wait for it, maybe nobody will notice us doing it. This reminds of me the Arctic Methane Emergency Group’s plan to make noctilucent clouds of diamond dust and calls for geoengineering the Arctic and a recent geoengineer mentioning “The Arctic Council.” More on this in the future.
I take offense to the use of Ice-Nucleating Particles (INP) as a replacement for the 60 year old term Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). They are the same damn thing. Why do geoengineers always come up with new words for the same unreliable technology? Because they are circumventing laws governing cloud seeding by calling it something else, PERIOD.
Here are some highlights from the paper: A Cirrus Cloud Climate Dial?
“Cirrus clouds frequently form through homogeneous nucleation of liquid aerosol particles such as sulfuric or nitric acid. Alternatively, they can form through heterogeneous nucleation with the help of solid aerosol particles such as desert dust, pollen, or other biological particles, which act as ice-nucleating particles (INPs). The cirrus cloud thinning concept is based on the assumption that most cirrus clouds in the present climate nucleate homogeneously.”
“The cooling effect of seeded cirrus clouds has three contributions. First, the cirrus clouds form at lower relative humidities that occur at lower altitudes in the atmosphere (see the figure), where they have a smaller warming effect. Second, because the number concentration of INPs is much lower than that of solution droplets, heterogeneously formed cirrus clouds contain fewer ice crystals. These ice crystals can grow to larger sizes and sediment more readily from cirrus levels, reducing the lifetime and optical thickness of cirrus clouds and hence their warming potential. Third, sedimenting ice crystals remove water vapor, the most important natural greenhouse gas, from the upper troposphere. [ED NOTE: lol, now suddenly water vapor is a problem. Admissions galore!]
If cirrus thinning works, it should be preferred over methods that target changes in solar radiation, such as stratospheric aerosol injections, because cirrus thinning would counteract greenhouse gas warming more directly. Solar radiation management methods cannot simultaneously restore temperature and precipitation at present-day levels but lead to a reduction in global mean precipitation because of the decreased solar radiation at the surface. This adverse effect on precipitation is minimized for cirrus seeding because of the smaller change in solar radiation.”
“One problem with cirrus seeding is overseeding, which occurs if too many INPs are injected. In overseeding, the cirrus clouds become optically thicker, leading to warming. … In addition, seeding needs to be avoided in cloud-free regions with high relative humidities where no cirrus clouds form. Here, seeding with INPs could lead to cirrus clouds that cause a warming effect on the climate, same as that from contrails. … Thus, if cirrus seeding is not done carefully, the effect could be additional warming rather than the intended cooling.”
The results from model studies of cirrus thinning suggest that the perfect seeding INPs should be large and that seeding could be geographically or temporally limited. Bismuth triiodide (BiI3) has been suggested as a nontoxic and affordable substance for cirrus seeding; other substances such as mineral dust should work as well. [ED NOTE: like David Keith’s aluminum nano-particle idea? Sounds like SAI at a different altitude to me]
However, further research is needed to investigate which particles would be good seeding agents. It is also important to determine whether these INPs also influence lower-lying clouds, and if so, whether this enhances or dampens the effect of cirrus thinning.
If the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate effect of cirrus thinning can be enhanced. For that, only the long-wave warming effect of cirrus clouds should be targeted, and their solar effect should be avoided. This can be achieved if seeding is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime seeding. Contrary to solar radiation management methods, cirrus seeding is more effective at high than at low latitudes. A small-scale deployment of cirrus seeding could therefore be envisioned—for instance, in the Arctic to avoid further melting of Arctic sea ice. Governance of such local climate engineering might be easier to achieve than for solar radiation management, especially if substantial climate effects outside the targeted region could be avoided. 
This cirrus cloud seeding idea is not new, I mentioned it at the EPA hearing back in 2015. Check out Trude Storelvmo at the Weather Modification Conference blurring the lines between Geoengineering SRM and Cloud Seeding: On The Climate Response to Cirrus Cloud Seeding. Also see the Video Presentation on my YouTube channel.
It’s time we start talking Cirrus-ly about Cirrus Clouds.
Cirrus clouds are the problem. People who want to experiment on cirrus clouds to cool the planet are the problem. The reason is simple:
- They WANT clouds by day, none by night.
- They will seed chemicals to melt cirrus clouds away at night or over the arctic.
- They will even shoot lasers at cirrus clouds to cool the planet!
 Boucher, O. Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078.
 Haywood, J. M., R. P. Allan, J. Bornemann, P. Forster, P. N. Francis, S. Milton, G. Rädel, A. Rap, K. P. Shine, and R. Thorpe (2009), A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail-induced cirrus, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D24201, doi:10.1029/2009JD012650. – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract
 Ulrike Lohmann, Miriam Kübbeler, Johannes Hendricks and Bernd Kärcher “Dust ice nuclei effects on cirrus clouds in ECHAM5-HAM” AIP Conf. Proc. 1527, 752 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4803380
 Svensmark, Henrik, and Eigil Friis-Christensen. “Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships.” Journal of atmospheric and solar-terrestrial physics 59.11 (1997): 1225-1232.
 Ulrich Schumann, German Aerospace Center, Recent research results on the climate impact of contrail cirrus and mitigation options, ICAO Colloquium on Aviation and Climate Change 2010
 Ulrike Lohmann, Blaž Gasparini. “A cirrus cloud climate dial?” Science 21 Jul 2017:
Vol. 357, Issue 6348, pp. 248-249 DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3325
If any of the links above do not work, copy the URL and paste it into the form below to check the Wayback Machine for an archived version of that webpage.