Radiative and Climate Effects of Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering Using Seasonally Varying Injection Areas

Original post from the OpChemtrails Library. Download this document here.

Notes:
“[…] varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the equator, but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing.” p.1

“Most previous modelling studies have investigated scenarios which inject sulfur along or close to the equator. This choice of injection region is well justified because the equator, on the average, receives the highest levels of solar radiation. In addition, the stratospheric circulation transports particles efficiently from the equator around the global atmosphere (Robock et al., 2008). However it has been found in several studies that preventing greenhouse gas (GHG) induced warming by equatorial injections of sulfur lead to overcooling of the tropics and undercooling of the polar regions, compared to the global mean decrease in temperature (Aswathy et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2016; McCuster et al., 2012; Yu et al., 2015).” p.2

“However, sulfur injected as SO2 takes weeks to months before it is oxidized and forms large enough particles to reflect solar radiation efficiently. Thus to obtain maximum aerosol forcing, one strategy could be to inject sulfur before the intensity of solar radiation has reached its maximum value at the injection latitude, thus leaving time for oxidation and particle growth.” p.3

“After two years, sulfate particles from the injections are removed from the atmosphere.” p.4

“[…] the lifetime of stratospheric sulfur is longer when injected to the equator (Robock et al., 2008).” p.6

“Previous research has shown that higher injections per unit volume lead to relatively larger particles, which in turn leads to relatively shorter lifetime of particles in the atmosphere (Heckendorn et al., 2009; English et al., 2012; Niemeier et al., 2011).” p.6

“Because SRM is turned on abruptly at full force in 2020, it would lead to a fast cooling. In the real world this kind of action is unlikely but based on the simulations plausible if needed for example prevent climate warming emergency (Kravitz et al., 2011).” p.9

“It has been shown that there is a slow decrease in temperature still decades after a decrease in shortwave radiation (Schaller et al., 2014).” p.10

“After the SRM is suspended in 2070 there is a very fast warming, called the termination effect of geoengineering (Jones et al., 2013). This warming is of the same magnitude as the cooling immediately after the sulfur injection is started. Thus, after the SRM is suspended, the climate remains significantly cooler for decades.” p.10

“Compensating the GHG induced global warming using SRM leads to a reduction in the global mean precipitation (Kravitz et al., 2013b; Ferraro and Griffiths, 2016). This is also supported by our simulations. Immediately after the injection has been started, the global mean precipitation falls clearly under the level of year 2010[…]” p.10

“Precipitation is thus more affected by the SRM than CO2.” p.10

“Aerosol particles both absorb radiation (which is then emitted as LW radiation) and they reduce the SW radiation at surface. These effects lead to a drier climate (Ferraro and Griffiths 2016).” p.11

“It has been also shown that P – E (Precipitation – Evaporations) will become more intense (Seager et al., 2010) which will cause wet areas to become wetter but also drying in the subtropical regions such as Mediterranean, Southern part of Africa and Australia.” p.12

“According our aerosol microphysical simulations by GCM, it would be possible to maintain as large global cooling effect as by injecting sulfur only in the equator while concentrating the cooling effect more to the midlatitudes than tropics. This could be achieved if the sulfur injection area is changed during the year.” p.13

“This highlights the role of feedbacks and ocean temperature which reacts slowly to the radiation changes in the atmosphere.” p.14

Click on the below links for futher information about the locations in this image or visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki and search the coordinates.

Map Information:
30° N – Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, People’s Republic of China, East China Sea, Japan, Pacific Ocean, Mexico, Gulf of California, United States, Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, Morocco.

10° N – Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Sudan, South Sudan, Abyei, Ethiopia, Somalia, Indian Ocean, India, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Vietnam, South China Sea, Philippines, Sulu Sea, Tañon Strait, Cebu Strait, Bohol Sea, Surigao Strait, Dinagat Sound, Pacific Ocean, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Costa Rica, Caribbean Sea, Colombia, Venezuela, Atlantic Ocean, Guinea, Guinea / Sierra Leone border, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Ghana.

10° S – Atlantic Ocean, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Malawi, Lake Malawi, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Indonesia, Savu Sea, Timor Sea, Arafura Sea, Coral Sea, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Sea, Pacific Ocean, Cook Islands, Kiribati, French Polynesia, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia.

30° S – South Africa, Lesotho, South Africa, Indian Ocean, Australia, Pacific Ocean, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Atlantic Ocean.

Global Radiative Forcing from Contrail Cirrus

Original Post via the OpChemtrails Library.

Download this document here.

Notes:
“Aviation makes a significant contribution to anthropogenic climate forcing.” p.54

“We show that the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone. We also find that contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect. Nevertheless, net radiative forcing due to contrail cirrus remains the largest single radiative-forcing component associated with aviation.” p.54

“Contrail cirrus initially form behind cruising aircraft as line-shaped contrails and transform into cirrus-like clouds or cloud clusters in favourable meteorological conditions, occasionally covering large horizontal areas. They have been tracked for up to 17 h in satellite observations. They remain line-shaped, and therefore easily distinguishable from natural cirrus, for only a fraction of their lifetime. The impact of aircraft soot emissions on cirrus in the absence of contrails depends on the ice-nucleating properties and the ice-active number concentration of soot-particle emissions.” p.54

“Contrail cirrus form and persist in air that is ice-saturated, whereas natural cirrus often require high ice supersaturation to form. This implies that in a substantial fraction of the upper troposphere, contrail cirrus can persist in supersaturated air that is cloud-free, thus increasing high cloud coverage.” p.54

“Over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage is largest, reaching up to 10%. Although the level of air traffic over the east coast of northern America is as large as over central Europe, contrail-cirrus coverage in the former region is lower, reaching 6%. It is mainly the coverage due to contrails older than 5 h that is smaller over the USA than over Europe…” p.54

“A large fraction of contrail cirrus is optically very thin (solar optical depth <0.02) and can therefore neither be detected by a satellite nor seen with the human eye from the ground.” p. 55

“The global net radiative forcing of contrail cirrus is roughly nine times that of young contrails, making it the single largest radiative-forcing component connected with aviation.” p.56

“Contrail cirrus change the water budget of the surrounding atmosphere and therefore can have an impact on natural clouds.” p. 56

“Locally, the decrease in natural-cirrus coverage (over Europe and the US) amounts to up to 10% of the natural-cirrus coverage or up to 20% of the contrail-cirrus coverage. Furthermore, in the main contrail-cirrus areas of North America and Europe, the optical depth of natural clouds is significantly (at the 95% significance level) reduced by up to 10% owing to the presence of contrail cirrus.” p.57

“Clouds are influenced by small-scale processes that cannot be resolved by a large-scale climate model and which therefore need to be parametrized.” p. 57

The Big Geoengineering Squeeze: time for political pressure

Governments and academic institutions vehemently deny such programs exist, yet the fact that for decades our atmosphere has been geoengineered by aircraft trails and ship trails is increasingly understood and acknowledge by a majority.

Although the recent news coverage on Harvard’s geoengineering circus and American State University was a double slap in the face to many anti geoengineering activists, concepts such as or similar solar radiation management (SRM), stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) and marine cloud brightening (MCB) are finally being discussed by the broader community. More importantly is has caused many people to question what they have already been witnessing in their sky.

Personally, I believe Harvard formally announced its’ ‘hypothetical’ plan to dim the sun (problem) to generate a flood of public concern (reaction), which will enable them to implement their plans for global governance of geoengineering programs (solution). Despite my personal opinion, the recent mainstream coverage concerning geoengineering may in fact be a positive development.

How on earth could it be positive?
We all know that voting systems these days are questionable to say the least, but now that geoengineering has been propelled into the mainstream arena political parties can be pressed to affirm the political party’s view on the matter (in black and white).

Ask your local representatives about their level of understanding and opinion on geoengineering; do they support research and/or future deployment? If a representative is found to endorse geoengineering technology, this can be used to launch a social media campaign which will inform voters that if they vote for ‘X’ they are voting for geoengineering. If representatives are unaware of geoengineering, this would be a perfect time to provide them with information.

Even if your local representatives deny the ongoing geoengineering programs we currently witness in our sky, they can no longer deny that governments and members of academia, adorning their sophisticated facades and passive aggressive mentality, are and now openly, but coyly, calling for the ‘official future deployment’ of geoengineering technologies and for the creation of a global governing body.

Academics keep the public bewildered by claiming geoengineering is only in the research stages, yet, the same people often fail to mention that some of these research projects last for almost as long as Smith and Wagner’s conjectural ‘SAIL’ program, which has a projected deployed lifespan of 15 years. Another detail which is often neglected is the fact that scientists and academic institutions were conducting outdoor experiments as early as the 1950’s.

Also, it is well documented that for a decade or more psychologists, sociologists, public relations experts and even philosophers have been employed by governments and academic institutions to research public opinion, reactions, apprehensions and knowledge regarding geoengineering. Is such research into human behaviour and psyche what is driving the geoengineering narrative now promoted by mainstream?

More Information
Below is a list of relevant information and websites you may like to share with your local representatives (or anyone who would like to learn more about geoengineering).

Artificial Clouds [website]: http://artificialclouds.com/

Weather Modification History [website]: https://weathermodificationhistory.com

Hands Off Mother Earth: Manifesto Against Geoengineering [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/504

Evidence of Clear-Sky Daylight Whitening [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/499

The Belford Group Report: Case Orange [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/491

Weather Modification: Programs, Problems, Policy, and Potential (1978) [pdf]: https://opchemtrails.com/archives/522

Additional Resources:
OpChemtrails Library: https://opchemlibrary.blogspot.com/

Links to informative websites: https://opchemtrails.com/home-2/welcome/links-info

___

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


Written by Kali_Furies, for OpChemtrails.com, 2019.

Support: Hands Off Mother Earth – Manifesto Against Geoengineering (2018)

“Mother Earth is our common home and its integrity must not be violated by geoengineering experimentation and deployment.

We are committed to protecting Mother Earth and defending our rights, territories and peoples against anyone attempting to take control of the global thermostat or the vital natural cycles of planetary functions and ecosystems.”

For More Information Visit the ETC Group website

Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

Finding Wally

Media outlets and online scientific communities came alive this week, with headlines such as “Could an anti-global-warming atmospheric spraying programme really work?”,  “100 Special planes and $2.5 Billion per year for sulphate geoengineering” and “Solar geoengineering could be remarkably inexpensive”.

This buzz of activity surrounds findings of a ‘new’ study, “Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment”, by Wake Smith and Gernot Wagner. The study looks at the hypothetical possibility and costs of conducting a global geoengineering program. Interestingly, and perhaps in an attempt to deflect from questions surrounding ongoing aviation induced cloud cover being reported by citizens worldwide, the study also looks at  whether the SAIL (Stratospheric aerosol injection lofter) program could be deployed secretly, concluding that it could not. This conclusion will be explored by examining existing relevant documentation relating to SAI technologies and by comparing US air traffic statistics to the SAIL deployment statistics provided by Smith and Wagner.

I would also like to note, that when looking closely at many of the scientific papers relating to geoengineering, certain names and institutions keep popping up. As highlighted in the article “Harvard Science = Mad Science”, the pro geoengineering community appears to be dominated by a top down (vertical) hierarchy. Meaning a small group of people are using various types of capital to influence the many. Any observer has to wonder why Harvard  appears to have developed a propensity for publishing pageant articles related to ‘geoengineering and secrecy’.

Download >> Finding Wally: Propaganda, Inner Circles & Deniability

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gf4ONSETZQG5VDJQl1di0jtVF-Z14AnP/view?usp=sharing