MIT Study Warns About the Dangers of Geoengineering and Weather Modification 1

Activist Post Header

Source: Activist Post

NOTE:  Open Complete MIT report as PDF Here

By Derrick Broze

As humanity works to avoid further environmental and ecological destruction to the planet, scientists continue to search for possible solutions to the numerous issues facing our species. One of these proposed solutions has been the science of geoengineering.

According to a 2013 congressional report:

The term ‘geoengineering’ describes this array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, socio-political impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.

In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal (CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM methods address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.

Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.

Geoengineering is seen as a controversial solution, to say the least. That controversy is likely to deepen following a recent study from MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences. The study, published in Nature’s Scientific Reports, has found that ocean fertilization geoengineering would alter global rainfall patterns and affect water resources.

Ocean fertilization is a type of geoengineering that seeks to mimic the ability of phytoplankton, the microalgae at the base of most oceanic food webs, to photosynthesize sunlight. As the phytoplankton absorb carbon dioxide, they also release dimethyl sulfide (DMS) into the atmosphere, which can form sulfate aerosols and reflect sunlight and cool the climate. Geoengineers hope to reproduce this natural process and thus reflect sunlight and cool the Earth.

According to, the researchers used one of the global climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which simulates the evolution of and interactions among the ocean, atmosphere, and land masses. These simulations found that increased DMS emissions would actually lead to an increase of 1.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 and “substantial reduction in precipitation for some regions.”

Chien Wang, a co-author of the study and a senior research scientist at MIT’s Center for Global Change Science and the Department of Earth, said the study was “the first in-depth analysis of ocean fertilization that has highlighted the potential danger of impacting rainfall adversely.”

Benjamin Grandey, a senior postdoc in Wang’s group who configured the model simulations and analyzed the data, said that although “Generally, our results suggest that the cooling effect associated with enhanced DMS emissions would offset warming across the globe, especially in the Arctic,” it would also lead to dangerous changes in global weather. “Precipitation would also decline worldwide, and some parts of the world would be worse off. Europe, the Horn of Africa, and Pakistan may receive less rainfall than they have historically,” Grandey stated.

The lower rainfall could reduce water resources considerably and threaten the environment and livelihoods of the animals and people in the affected regions.

The MIT team is not the first to ring the alarm bells when it comes to geoengineering and other forms of weather modification. Although a number of authorities have warned about the dangers of geoengineering techniques, the risks are seen as secondary to the perceived risks of climate change. The interesting thing to note is that although proponents of geoengineering hail it as the solution to climate change and sustaining life, studies show that geoengineering could actually have the reverse effect of heating the Earth.

In February of 2015, an international committee of scientists released a report stating that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management before implementation.

The scientists found that Solar Radiation Management, or albedo-modification techniques, are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.” The report was sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. intelligence community, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Another danger of manipulating the weather is the loss of blue skies. According to a report by the New Scientist, Ben Kravitz of the Carnegie Institution for Science has shown that releasing sulphate aerosols high in the atmosphere would scatter sunlight into the atmosphere. He says this could decrease the amount of sunlight that hits the ground by 20% and make the sky appear more hazy.

According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land. The study, titled, “The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management,” seems to indicate that once you begin geoengineering, you cannot suspend the programs without causing the very problem you were seeking to resolve.

What are the solutions to the many ecological and environmental problems facing humanity? The studies indicate that attempting to play God with the weather will have disastrous effects on the ability of the human population to live and prosper. If you fear the results of mad scientists controlling the weather or pursuing dangerous solutions like geoengineering, please share this article and continue to spread knowledge. It is time for the awakened people of this Earth to stand together against those who seek to destroy the planet — and seek solutions that work with Earth rather than seeking to dominate and exploit it.

Also Read: Masters Of The World Meet To Play God With The Climate

This article (MIT Study Warns About the Dangers of Geoengineering & Weather Modification) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and Tune in! The Anti-Media radio show airs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos:

New Documentary Links Chemtrails to NWO and United Nations Agenda 3

An UNconventional Shade of Grey

“An UNconventional Shade of Grey is a call to action film that addresses chemtrail/geoengineering films in relation to our changing climate and global warming legislation. “An UNconventional Shade of Grey will also outline specific plans to take legal and legislation action to get these programs stopped immediately.

For more information and to pre-order film, go to:


Climate Change to Fear Most

Scientists Stumped to Explain 18 Year Pause in Global Warming 1

No Global Warming in 18 Years ChartFigure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 2 months since October 1996. The hiatus period of 18 years 2 months, or 218 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.

New Study:  “Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over recent decades” (Download PDF)


Aerosols and their effect on the radiative properties of clouds are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in calculations of the Earth’s energy budget. Here the sensitivity of aerosol cloud-albedo effect forcing to 31 aerosol parameters is quantified. Sensitivities are compared over three periods; 1850-2008, 1978-2008 and 1998-2008. Despite declining global anthropogenic SO2 emissions during 1978-2008, a cancellation of regional positive and negative forcings leads to a near-zero global mean cloud-albedo effect forcing. In contrast to existing negative estimates, our results suggest that the aerosol cloud-albedo effect was likely positive (0.006 to 0.028 Wm-2) in the recent decade, making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response. Proportional contributions to forcing variance from aerosol processes and natural and anthropogenic emissions are found to be period dependent. To better constrain forcing estimates, the processes that dominate uncertainty on the timescale of interest must be better understood.

One of the leading explanations of the decade-and-a-half “pause” in global warming is that aerosols – fine particles of various kinds, mostly man-made, but also volcanic in origin – have increased the albedo (reflectiveness) of clouds.  The cooling effect of high pollution in the early period of the industrial revolution in the 19th and early 20th century is well known and documented.

Geophysical Research Letters, one of the leading scientific journals in the climate world, has posted a pre-publication copy of a forthcoming paper that has gone through complete peer review casting significant doubt on this hypothesis. “Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol – cloud radiative forcing over recent decades” was conducted by ten scientists from the leading climate science establishments mostly in Brittain.

Translation: The findings of this study indicate that the “aerosol” explanation of the warming pause is not supported by data – and at least ten respected scientists are saying we don’t know enough about how this works.  Previous claims are that current albedo cloud effects are negative, and thus holding down warming by virtue of reflecting sunlight, while this new study suggests the current cloud albedo effect is slightly positive (that is, warming, though very slightly).

One argument previously held is that if China, India, and other countries follow the United States and Europe in reducing particulate pollution, the reflective effect of clouds will diminish and warming will resume.  But with this study that hypothesis needs to be rethought. (Source)

Note:  RSS research is supported by NASA, NOAA, and the NSF, with many of their researchers participating in NASA science research teams and working groups, collaborating with other fore-front industry leaders and the scientific community. (Source)


In 1999 the IPCC reported that aircraft contrails and thin, high Cirrus clouds tend to warm surface temperatures.

This new paper is also consistent with our observation that chemtrails are frequently captured on camera appearing less reflective than normal clouds – an observation consistent with the authors’ finding that cloud albedo was found to be positive (warming) rather than negative (cooling). – Hsaive

Jet Aircraft Release of Aerosols That Warm the Climate

The existence of the pause in global warming was acknowledged by the IPCC last year (2013) but there has been significant debate about the actual duration of this hiatus with some commentators alleging that the length is exaggerated by cherry-picking the start date as 1998 – a particularly warm year.

McKitrick says that the statistical analysis technique he used avoids potential biases and is immune to the charge of cherry-picking.

“…we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series”. –

Climate Change More Likely Caused by Chemtrails/Geoengineering 5

The Real Agends News Header

Climate Change more likely spurred by Planetary Geo-engineering


Chemtrails Neighborhood-WatchAnthropogenic activity as the cause of planetary warming may be a hoax, but the planet is indeed getting warmer. The news here is that different from what climate alarmists have said for decades, such warming, at the rate it is happening, may not be caused by the burning of fossil fuels or industrial activity. There is a more powerful driver of global warming, and that is solar activity.

The sun has experienced lows and highs throughout its existence and so have all the planet’s temperatures. But on Earth there is a second component of global warming that is affecting the planet’s stability. Geo-engineering, which is the artificial modification of the weather over a determined area, seems to be directly responsible for the unusual weather and climate patterns seen in the last 15 years. The technique has been used for at least 60 years, the patents for the different kinds of Geo-engineering have been awarded for a long time and the application of the various types of planetary engineering have been tested exhaustively in laboratory and in open air.

The most popular of all methods of planetary engineering is the use of Chemtrails. Chemtrails are showers of chemicals poured over determined areas with the intent of affecting weather patterns. The use of chemicals such as aluminum, barium and strontium, which have been sprayed over the planet for the past 6 decades allowed military contractors to test the effects of such chemicals on weather patterns in order to produce ways to drive or control weather elements such as rain, storms, winds and others.

The project to manipulate the weather was focused on how military applications of Geo-engineering could provide advantages for the United States armed forces in any possible fight against potential enemies, but today other nations such as Russia and China also possess technology to modify the weather. The studies seem to have begun back in the 1940’s, and applications and tests began to run in the 1950’s. By injecting chemicals into the atmosphere, proponents of weather modification and its use as a force magnifier are able to make it rain, cause floods, prevent rainfall, cause droughts, create and direct storms and even cause seismic activity. (see link with list of patents).


Chemtrails Data Censored by Wikipedia Confirms Coverup 4

wikipedia Chemtrails Censored-b

Open letter no. 2 to the Danish parliament:

(Sent to The Environment Committee, The Health Committee and The Climate, Energy and Building Committee. Furthermore this text lies on the website of Henrik Rosenø (www.Transformation.DK), where you can read and write user-comments.)

Manipulation of Wikipedia covers up serious crime

Analysis: Wikipedia’s credibility as a serious independent media has been undermined. Within a year, in the Wikipedia article “Chemtrails conspiracy theory”, we have registered 14 examples, mentioned below, of users’ attempts to add serious and relevant information and sources about chemtrails, which then immediately is removed by someone else… In addition, this document contains some of the best photos documenting chemtrails, that we have been able to find!

– by M.Sc Henrik Rosenø and B.Sc Frank B. Rasmussen on behalf of the Danish association “Fri For Flystriber” (Free From Plane Stripes)

If you just enter the keyword ‘chemtrails’ on Google, then the top search result is a Wikipedia article entitled “Chemtrail conspiracy theory”. Therefore, that article has about 2500 visitors per day on average. In reality, the article depicts chemtrails as if they are an illusion – a misunderstanding.

Many people attribute great credibility to articles on Wikipedia because in principle the articles are the result of a lot of people, who know something about a topic, writing an article on the subject together. But that credibility requires, among other things, that the users can reach a reasonable degree of consensus on what the article should contain – and this is certainly not the case for the article “Chemtrail conspiracy theory”! *** Continue

Chemtrails Tanker with no gap