Is IPCC Blaming Chemtrails for Failed Global Warming Hypothesis? 1

North Florida Skywatch Header-8
IPCC Climate Change Artwork headerWORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT – CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS — Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment — A report accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail. (IPCC)
This is the complete 2216 page document in final draft form but without detailed approval. (Download large 158 MB PDF)
As global observes have become increasingly aware of more than two decades of covert HAAD (High Altitude Aerosol Deployment aka Chemtrails), the IPCC has been increasingly challenged to respond to mammoth aerosol dumps that obviously interfere with both sides of the climate change debate.

The IPCC knows they have lost credibility for many reasons and by pretending that HAAD does not exist. The skeptics also lose credibility for the same reason despite coming from behind with a hollow victory by also ignoring the obvious HAAD operation.

By failing to consider all the known variables outside of CO2, neither side can claim a hypothesis, that can be disproved, actually exists.

Even as the words are in need of decoding, it appears the work group is pointing to globally observed HAAD operation as an excuse for the completely failed AGW hypothesis.

Clear language is used to deny that geoengineering via solar radiation management (SRM) has yet been deployed for the purpose of mitigating global warming/climate change.

P 871: “SRM methods are unimplemented and untested. Research on SRM is in its infancy though it leverages understanding of how the climate responds to forcing more generally.”

It appears the work group wants to make it clear that the publicly observed HAAD are not officially coordinated by any UN entity but leaves it to your imagination as to who is in charge and how the massive aerosol dumps are making it impossible for the hypothesis to fit the observed data.  That the IPCC has no control over HAAD is no surprise to observers who’ve regarded aerosol dumps as a military operation long before emergency SRM geoengineering was thought necessary.

The executive summary is a bold admission that the IPCC has little idea how cloud/aerosol chemistry effects observations:

P 869:  “Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget.”

A tone of “activism” to cease the HAAD operation and reject SRM is apparent in this comment on geoengineering proposals. The risks include drought-forcing,  polar ozone depletion (Increased UVB penetration to melt ice), consequences of addictive SRM increases to maintain status-quo and continued increases in ocean acidification.

P 871: Numerous side effects, risks and shortcomings from SRM have been identified. Several lines of evidence indicate that SRM would produce a small but significant decrease in global precipitation (with larger differences on regional scales) if the global surface temperature were maintained. A number of side effects have been identified. One that is relatively well characterised is the likelihood of modest polar stratospheric ozone depletion associated with stratospheric aerosol SRM. There could also be other as yet unanticipated consequences. As long as greenhouse gas concentrations continued to increase, the SRM would require commensurate increase, exacerbating side effects. Additionally, scaling SRM to substantial levels would carry the risk that if the SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that surface temperatures would increase rapidly (within a decade or two) to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing, which would stress systems sensitive to the rate of climate change. Finally, SRM would not compensate for ocean acidification from increasing CO2. [7.6.3, 7.7, Figures 7.22–7.24]

1963:  As a goal to open northern sea passages, meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed destruction of ozone to warm the arctic

“To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane. Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5 (source)”

Following the 2007 IPCC report, data pointing to the significant role of atmospheric aerosols began entering the climate change discussion.

• A 2009 study published by  Shindel et al  (NASA) pushed aerosols into nearly equal competition with CO2 for driving AGW.
“… aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades.”
• In 2010 Joe Golden (NOAA)announced black carbon  as a powerful tool for “invigorating” hurricanes (increasing destructive power).
“Because the recent statistical studies by Clavner, an MS student under the supervision of Rosenfeld, suggest that black carbon aerosols intensify hurricanes…”
• In 2013 black carbon  influence on climate found to be about 2 times higher than most previous work, including the estimates in the 2007 IPCC  report.
HAAD and black carbon aerosols:
Thanks to Joe Golden at NOAA, we now know that black carbons can be effectively deployed as HAAD to modify storms and other weather features.
How frequently are radiative absorbing (RA) aerosols like black carbon deployed as HAAD?:  To ground observers, HAAD manifests as persistent jet trails with apparent reflective qualities that could belie darker particulates within the plume.  Many observers have occasionally witnessed black jet trail emissions consistent with the appearance of black carbon. More subtly, HAAD emissions that appear “bright” by ground observation take on a dirty, brownish appearance under telescopic scrutiny as in the following video.
A mix of aerosol payloads with different absorptive and reflective properties is apparent when the hue of emissions changes from engine to engine mounted to the same aircraft.
Chemtrail tanker different color trails
Considering that each HAAD payload can contain a choice of different aerosol compounds, it turns into an obvious impossibility for IPCC investigators, or climate deniers to compute the consequence to atmospheric warming or cooling.

One comment

  1. Pingback: ▶ Climate Change 2013 Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis | Forest of Peace

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s