Government Study: Geoengineering Too Dangerous

The potential negative consequences of geoengineering are still too unclear.

Geoengineering has been used for decades in forms known by the public as chemtrails, electromagnetic waves and laser beams.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
September 7, 2011

2009 Moscow Halo. Case Orange cites this as evidence of cloud seeding, but others suspect it is electromagnetic in origin.

Geoengineering is in essence the artificial and deliberate manipulation of the weather by applying existent technologies to change weather and weather patterns over an area of planet Earth. The use of these technologies has been pushed by a section of the scientific community as well as influential climate change alarmists groups. But the technologies used to modify the climate go beyond climate modification and extend their function to other areas such as plate tectonics, and military weaponry. Main stream scientists do not discuss the uses cited before, but limit themselves to suggest practices such as ocean fertilization, cloud seeding and CO2 sequestration, among others.

Techniques such as ocean fertilization, and CO2 sequestration have not been, however, the most popular among those who deem these practices as life saving. The United States, mainly, and other developed countries have experimented with other, less discussed technologies that are often left outside main stream discussions. What all of these practices have in common, though, is the fact that none of them is safe and its implementation could cause more damage than the supposed catastrophe they intend to avoid. This is the conclusion of a study published last July by the United States Government accountability Office.

GAO Study comes half a century Late

You would think this and other studies would come before any of these weather modification techniques were tried out in the open, but that is not the case. If one goes back half a century or so, it is easy to find examples of how weather modification was used as a warfare practice. During the Vietnam War, the United States used cloud seeding to flood land areas where the Vietnamese armies were stationed in order to weaken their operation against the invasion. Project Stormfury consisted of planes flying inside tropical storms and seeding such storms with with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. Project Cirrus was another attempt to manipulate the weather; this time by affecting a hurricane’s behaviour. The project was headed by General Electric, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force. During this trial on October 13, 1974, government scientists, attempted to modify a hurricane heading west to east. Nowadays, even countries like China possess bureaucracies dedicated to the practice of weather modification. In Beijing, the Weather Modification Office coordinates the use of technologies to prevent or cause it to rain whenever it is needed. For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. (1)

In its report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) begins by explaining that the reason of their study is the analysis of “climate engineering technologies, focusing on their technical status, future directions for research and potential responses.” Then it goes on to say that “GAO reviewed the scientific literature and government reports, consulted experts with a wide variety of backgrounds and viewpoints, and surveyed 1,006 adults across the United States.” (2)

Heavy use of Chemtrails for the purposes of modifying the climate. Image by NASA.

Among the conclusions found by GAO are that “Climate engineering technologies do not now offer a viable response to global climate change.” According to the report, technologies studied by GAO included Carbon Dioxide (the gas plants breathe in order to live) removal, and solar radiation management (SRM). This last technique would include blocking the life-giving sun light in order to, say some scientists and climate alarmists, prevent excessive heating of the planet. SRM technologies have been used widely in many countries this author has visited, including the United States, Brazil, Costa Rica and others like England and the rest of the western European countries. What SRM does, is spray crystals and toxic chemicals such as sulfate aerosols and barium,  into the stratosphere. “For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering), ” says Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri. (3)

The GAO study continues to relate its findings by saying that current geoengineering techniques are immature and that many of them could have potentially negative consequences. This confirms the health hazards cited above by Dr. Perlingieri. However, the study also incites collective thinking where regardless of the risks presented by the use of these technologies, researchers still believe it is worthwhile to practice controlled versions of weather modification. Later, it says many consulted scientists oppose research as they anticipate  “major technology risks or limited future climate change.” Most of the people consulted said they were not familiar with weather modification, but were opened to carrying out more research, says GAO. These people are obviously not only not aware of the existence of geoengineering techniques – mostly because the government and the companies involved have somehow successfully tried to hide their experiments – but are also unaware that such experiments are carried out already all over the world without their consent.

As explained before, studies like the one carried out by GAO should have been conducted before government and corporate experiments took place. However, as it happens often nowadays, governments feel they are entitled to do whatever they want without informing the public first. Although GAO’s study is pertinent because it exposes what many have called “conspiracy theories” as facts, it fails miserably to address the history of weather modification and stratospheric experimentation already being conducted all over the planet.

The study performed by GAO at the request of House Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, rated current weather modification technologies on a scale from 1 – 9 according to their “readiness”. Although this criterion is irrelevant from the point of view of the health hazard geoengineering poses to humanity, none of the available weather modification techniques scored above 3 on the study’s scale. “Both research advocates and opponents cautioned that climate engineering research carries risks either in conducting certain kinds of research or in using the results (for example, deploying potentially risky technologies that were developed on the basis of the research).”

The Government Accountability Office’s study seems to be originated on the widely debunked belief that human activity is the cause of what some scientists call Anthropogenic Global Warming (the planet has experienced global cooling in the last decade) that according to them is caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions. One can say that the study started with the left foot, because it is based on a premise that is at the very least dubious. At least one thousand re-known scientists have cast doubts about the theory of man-made warming and this belief should at least be given a second thought. (4)

The premise of the study that humans cause global warming is filled with half truths and previously exposed fallacies such as the belief that some islands will sink as a consequence of rising seas, that ice caps will uncontrollably melt and that polar bears will die because they can’t swim. (5) The study also considers other geophysical changes on the planet which would result from the supposed warming, such as changes in vegetation and precipitation which are unreasonably labeled a negative. In fact, the study says that many scientists “have proposed that rising temperatures might benefit certain geographic areas or economic sectors; for example, agricultural productivity might increase in some areas… …while global surface temperature is increasing on average, it is not increasing uniformly…” The former idea that agriculture in many parts of the world might benefit from the warming, coincides with the fact that scientific records indicate that planet Earth was once warmer and contained 10 times more CO2 than today, which resulted in greener landscapes and food abundance.

As The Real Agenda has informed before, the only concern people who defend the theory of anthropogenic global warming have, is that their beloved “ivory towers” and “premium centers of control” are saved from naturally occurring climate change. In the report, GAO cites concerns given by some scientists regarding “dangerous sea level rising that “could threaten several large ports and urban centers in the United States, such as Miami, New York, and Norfolk.” Of course these same people have no problem with preventing the Third World from developing to levels they enjoy today, or to take the planet to a post-industrial era if this is what it takes to reduce emissions to levels only seen pre-Industrial Revolution.

The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more.

More recently, a study by CERN, the CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment, has once again confirmed that it is solar radiation and not human activity what drives Earth’s climate. The report describing the findings of this study were partially banned from public discussion by the head of CERN, Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer, as he thought that the results of the observations would be used to publicly, once and for all cut the ears and tail from the pink elephant in the room: There is no such a thing as man-made global warming. (6)

What GAO Does not address in the Study

As explained before, GAO’s study seems to come at least 50 years late and on top of this, it fails to present unmistakable evidence that experiments such as the ones described as “potentially dangerous” have been carried out for many decades already. Even some main stream media have made echo of scientists suggestions to employ weather modification techniques to “save us from disaster”. Just last March, USAToday advertised how trendy was to spray people with aluminum, barium and other deadly chemicals in order to save the world from human-caused destruction. (7) The article went on to present what some scientist said was an opportunity to make things right before geoengineering had to be considered as a necessity. One scientist even suggested that geoengineering was a viable option to save us from disaster. “Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public,” said David Victor of the University of California-San Diego.

Separately, National Geographic published an article suggesting the employment of nuclear weapons to reverse global warming. The magazine article echoed a government scenario where a small nuclear war among small countries could help reduce the effects of Global Warming. The article also warned that such a small war would cause the planet Earth to miss summers for several years, cause the appearance and spread of disease, but that perhaps it was a good idea to make it happen. (8)

Despite historical evidence, the GAO study does not specifically mention the dangers weather modification through geoengineering pose to human life or to the planet itself. However, there is plenty of evidence on this regard. “For decades, we have known that heavy metals and chemicals can cause grave physical harm. Going back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” we have known and been amply warned of the serious consequences of using or being exposed to these poisons in our daily activities. Thousands of these are well-documented carcinogens,” writes Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries]. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed.

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.

The HAARP-looking Jicamarca Radio Observatory is part of the Geophysical Institute of Peru. It receives the majority of its financial support from the National Science Foundation of the United States through a cooperative agreement with Cornell University.

But Chemtrails is not the only weather modification technique used by government and government-sponsored experiments. “The existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity is documented and not only a conspiracy theory.”  Scientists involved in the testing and use of these technologies admit to running experiments around the planet,” says Andrei Areshev, deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation. According to Areshev, “climate weapons may be reaching their target capacity and may be used to provoke droughts, erase crops, and induce various anomalous phenomena in certain countries.” Perhaps Mr. Areshev is talking about the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), (9) another of those weapons that main stream media and main stream scientists call a conspiracy theory, while refusing to talk about it. But weather modification was also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not? And the use of Chemtrails were also considered a conspiracy theory, was it not?

In his 1995 book Angels Don’t Play this HAARP, Dr. Nick Begich explains how HAARP zaps the upper atmosphere with an electromagnetic beam. “It is an advanced model of an ionospheric heater.” According to Begich, HAARP is a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that affects areas of the ionosphere by directing a beam to those areas. As a consequence, electromagnetic waves bounce  onto earth and penetrate anything and everything. (10)

A third form of weaponized weather modification techniques is laser beam weapons in space. In 1998, USAF Lt Col. William H. Possel submitted a research report to the faculty of the Air War College, where he explains the current status of space-based laser beam weapons. In his report titled Laser Weapons In Space: A Critical Assessment, Possel cites how attractive laser beam weapons are for attacking and destroying ballistic missiles. He even goes into the type of laser beams that can be used for warfare purposes. Among them, Hydrogen Fluoride Laser, Deuterium Fluoride Laser and Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser. Additionally, Possel goes into detail about how advantageous Space-based Laser Weapon are. “It has the distinct advantage over ground systems of being able to cover a large theater of operations that is limited only by the platform’s orbital altitude. As the platform’s altitude increases, the size of the area it “sees” increases. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but what would happen if anyone has managed to perfect the use of Electromagnetic Wave beams (HAARP) and Space-based weapons. And, weren’t weather modification technologies intended to prevent catastrophe as supposed to create catastrophic events? In case you haven’t understood, we are talking about the use of enhanced weather modification technologies for the purpose of waging warfare anywhere on the planet. (11)

Weather Modification is no Conspiracy Theory

In an article titled Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails, writer Rady Ananda presents a review of the “Case Orange” report. According to Ananda, in May 2010, scientists confirmed that weather manipulation is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory. “It is fully operational with a solid sixty-year history.” According to the World Meteorological Organization recent history has seen a decline in support for weather modification investigation and an accelerated trend to turn existent research into what is called operational projects. (12)

As Ananda cites in his article, the Case Orange is tied to a 1996 report prepared by military personnel. The report titled Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 related existent evidence of government sponsored spraying schedules, chemical orders, nomenclature used in airline operating manuals, and calls for geoengineering by economists. “Owning the Weather in 2025 provides a specific timeline for the use of EnMod technologies in cooperation with the Weather Modification Association (WMA), a business-government group promoting the beneficial uses of environmental modification.” Well, they are not as beneficial as the Government Accountability Office has now found. Some of the steps to be taken as part of the project to “own the weather”, are: introduce ionic mirrors, with a sharp increase by 2008; the use of chemicals for atmospheric seeding by civilian (as well as military) aviation;  the creation of smart clouds thru nanotechnology, with exponential increase after 2010 and the  introduction of ‘carbon black dust’.

The Case Orange report concludes with a revealing yet familiar practice by government, military and government contractors:

Our investigation team comes to the conclusion that climate control programs, controlled by the military but approved by governments, are silently implemented in order to avoid the worst case scenarios they obviously do not want. The two basic instruments are temperature control through generation of artificial clouds and manipulation of the ionosphere through ionosphere heaters.

Both remain basically military combat systems with the option to go into the offensive if deemed necessary. However since several ionosphere heaters are installed on various places around the globe one can assume that there is wide cooperation between governments in order to reach the climate targets by 2025: controlling the weather and thus the planet.

So let’s see what we have. A clearly stated purpose to modify the climate of planet Earth as presented by government organizations, corporations and a section of the scientific community. A plan to own the weather by 2025. A report written by the military that explains how ionospheric manipulation through the use of electromagnetic beams (HAARP), whose infrastructure is spread all over the planet, is used to perform climate control programs. A report written by United States Air Force Lt Col. William H. Possel, where he explains the reality of space-based weapons derived from weather manipulation technology. A historical presentation by Dr. Nick Begich on his book Angels Don’t Play This HAARP, where he explains how electromagnetic wave technology is used to negatively affect the weather by heating up the ionosphere. A warning from Andrei Areshev, the deputy director of the Strategic Culture Foundation in Russia, who independently confirms the existence and application of technology to modify the weather, the ionosphere and to cause plate tectonics activity. Documented proof of the historical use of weather modification technology to artificially pollute planet Earth in an insane attempt to “avoid a fictitious global warming doom scenario. Suggestions by main stream media that took it upon themselves to advertise the use of weather modification technologies to affect weather, no matter how dangerous it may be. Documented medical statements that prove beyond any reasonable doubt how weather modification negatively impacts the health of us humans, who weather modification supporters ironically claim to be protecting. Lastly, but not less important, a study by the United States Accountability Office that once and for all eliminates any doubt about the dangers that artificial weather modification technologies and techniques pose to humanity and planet Earth.

Do you need further proof that weather modification in order to save us from an unexistent impending global catastrophe is a bad idea? And if global warming is real and climate change is real, either anthropogenic or otherwise, is it wise to risk our very own existence and the health of our planet to please a group of scientists and control freaks who want to militarize it all for warfare purposes? (13) Aren’t there enough weapons, enough wars and enough death? How many more of us need to die in order for the controllers to be satisfied? 6.5 billion, it seems.


Flat Earth Al calls Global Warming Skeptics “Racists”

However, it is Al Gore himself who seeks to reduce world population in underdeveloped countries by installing his carbon tax scam, which would not allow the developing world to achieve First World living standards.

By Caroline May
The Daily Caller
August 28, 2011

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as racists, or so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcast on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED: Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene).

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

Gore also took shots at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Ironically, back during Perry’s days as a Democrat, the Texas governor supported Gore in his 1988 presidential bid. Perry became a Republican in 1989.

Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat

CNSNews.com
April 26, 2011

Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.

Respondents were asked: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?” They were given the options of answering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.

Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gallup did not publish the separate percentages for each answer.

In the United States, 53 percent said they believed global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat to themselves and their families. That was down from 63 percent in polling that Gallup did on the question in the United States in 2007 and 2008.

Of the 111 countries that Gallup polled, Greece ranked as No.1 for popular fear of global warming. In that southern European country 87 percent said global warming was a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.

That was a far higher percentage than across the Mediterranean in Egypt, a desert nation, where only 18 percent said they believed global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Somaliland ranked dead last—with only 10 percent of local residents saying global warming was a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Yemen ranked second to last with 13 percent.

China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, ranked 105th out of 111 among the countries polled by Gallup. Only 21 percent of Chinese said they believed global warming is a somewhat serious or very serious threat to themselves or their families.

Globalists, Climate Alarmists Move Forward with Deindustrialization Agenda

Reuters
April 8, 2011

Rich and poor nations overcame deep divisions on Friday to cut a deal that maps out U.N. climate negotiations for 2011, building on last December’s agreement in Mexico and hardening the focus on tougher issues.

The deal in Bangkok came after nearly four days of talks that some developing nations said were needed to “recalibrate” U.N. climate negotiations after last year’s Cancun agreements.

They wanted an agenda that tackled the fate of the Kyoto Protocol on fighting global warming and rich countries’ pledges to cut emissions, and clarified sources of cash for poorer nations rather than just building on what was agreed at Cancun.

But many rich nations said some developing nations were simply trying to row back on what was agreed in Cancun and this undermined negotiations this year that culminate in the South African city of Durban from late November.

Many nations were unhappy that much of the April 3-8 meeting was taken up arguing over the agenda, with the United States saying the delay dampened the mood, while some developing nations had misgivings about the end result. All expressed an urgency to press ahead with negotiations.

“It’s less rosy today than when we came in (at the start of the meeting),” senior U.S. negotiator Jonathan Pershing told reporters. In particular, he said some countries wanted to renegotiate the Cancun decisions.

“I don’t think that’s going to be constructive. What became evident is that we can expect more of that going forward,” he said.

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, chair of the Africa Group, said he had mixed feelings. “Thank god we came up with an agenda. It’s a pity it took so long. What does it say for the rest of the year?”

FRAUGHT

Cancun is widely regarded as saving the often fraught negotiations from collapse.

Nations agreed curbs on the loss of tropical forests, schemes to transfer clean technology to poorer nations and help them adapt to climate change impacts, and a goal for rich countries to provide $100 billion a year in aid from 2020.

But it side-stepped tougher issues, such as whether to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol, with concerns growing that a new pact or extension to Kyoto will not be agreed before the pact’s first phase ends next year.

Kyoto binds almost 40 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five-year period 2008-2012. A second phase is meant to increase those cuts for rich nations.

It is the only pact imposing legal obligations on emissions cuts and the U.N. talks have been hobbled by disagreement over how to extend that obligation to all major economies, such as China, the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter.

The United States is No. 2. It never ratified Kyoto.

In Bangkok, there was a fresh focus on trying to find a compromise, with the agreed agenda stating there should be a continued discussion of the legal options of a new agreement that captures emissions curbs by all major economies.

“This evening in Bangkok, parties agreed an agenda to work toward a comprehensive and balanced outcome at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Durban,” said U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres.

But disputes still loom over the size of rich nations’ pledges to cut emissions, with the United Nations saying they are not enough to avoid average global warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Nations agreed in Cancun to work to keep the rise below this level to stave off ever greater extremes of droughts and floods, crop failures and rising sea levels.

Environmental groups were worried by the outcome of Bangkok.

“Once again, delegates could not reach agreement over key issues, including the future of the Kyoto Protocol, bringing the talks to a screeching halt almost from the beginning,” said Tasneem Essop of WWF.

Others pointed to the urgency to act to fight the impacts of climate change.

“There’s uncertainty about where the Cancun agreements take us, and can countries meet their commitments, and is it enough? And I think that was really at the heart of the agenda debate,” said Angela Anderson of the U.S. Climate Action Network.

Albedo and OLR Radiation with Variations of Precipitation – Implications for AGW

By William M. Gray & Barry Schwartz
March 3, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper troposphere temperature and water vapor increases. The initial warming resulting from the blockage of infrared (IR or OLR) radiation due to CO2’s increases has been programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall, temperature, and water vapor increases. This causes an additional blockage of IR energy to space which is substantially larger than the original CO2 blockage of IR by itself. This additional longwave IR blockage of energy to space (a positive feedback mechanism) is simulated in the models to be twice or more as strong as the original IR blockage from CO2 alone. We question the reality of this positive feedback mechanism. This study is directed towards determining the reality of such large positive feedback processes. This is a crucial question for determining the likely amount of global warming that will result from the anticipated doubling of CO2 by the end of the 21st century.

We have analyzed a wide variety of albedo and IR differences which are associated with rainfall variations on many different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which we are able to accept or reject the reality of the Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations. The following analysis indicates that the GCM simulation of the influence of a doubling of CO2 give far too much global warming. We anticipate that a doubling of CO2 will act in a way to cause the global hydrologic cycle to increase in strength by approximately 3-4 percent. Our analysis indicates that there will be very little global temperature increase (~0.3oC) for a doubling of CO2, certainly not the 2-5oC projected by the GCMs.

DATA ANALYSIS

We have analyzed 21 years (1984-2004) of ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) outgoing solar (albedo) and IR (OLR) on various distance (from local to global) and time scales (from daily to decadal). We have investigated how radiation measurements change with variations in precipitation as determined from NCEP-NCAR reanalysis data on a wide variety of space and time scales (Figure 1). We have stratified our radiation and rainfall data into three latitudinal sections and six longitudinal areas (Figure 2). We analyzed IR and albedo changes which were related to reanalysis-determined rainfall variations by month (January to December) and by yearly periods for the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o) and for the globe, defined as 70oN-70oS; 0-360o for this study.

For each month and region we have categorized our 21 years of ISCCP radiation data into the 10 highest average monthly rainfall values and subtracted the 10 lowest average monthly rainfall values. We analyzed IR and albedo differences between these 10 highest versus 10 lowest precipitation months. These monthly rainfall differences were typically between 4-7 percent of the total rainfall. For the 10 highest minus 10 lowest yearly rainfall differences within the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o) and for most of the globe (70oN-70oS; 0-360o), rainfall differences varied between 2-3 percent.
A second rainfall stratification involved comparing the rainfall and associated IR and albedo differences for variations in rainfall for the years of 1995-2004 versus the years of 1984-1994. The latter 10 years had approximately two percent more tropical and global rainfall than the earlier period. The individual monthly differences for the earlier and latter period were in the range of 3-4 percent of the mean rainfall values.

The third rainfall stratification involved daily mean rainfall and its association with IR and albedo at many individual stations. We also analyzed 3-hourly radiation information associated with daily average rainfall differences. Our individual 3-hour albedo analysis showed that albedos can be as high as 800-1000 Wm-2 over heavy rain and cloud regions near mid-day.

FINDINGS

a)  The albedo occurring over the top of strong precipitation and high cloud regions typically increases at a greater rate than does the usual decrease of IR within these same rain and cloud areas. Heavy rain and cloud areas are local places of strong enhanced net radiation to space (Figure 3 – left diagram). In almost all organized rain and cloud areas we find that albedo to space goes up in both magnitude (Wm-2) and in percentage more than the expected simultaneous magnitude and percentage reduction of IR flux to space.

In the adjacent subsidence areas of little or no cloudiness and rain there is typically a reduction of albedo that is one to two times greater than the enhancement of IR to space (right side of Figure 3). In scattered and broken cloud areas of little or no significant rain there is typically a close balance between the enhancement of IR to space and the reduction of albedo.

b)  IR and albedo usually change in opposite directions. They have a high negative correlation. There are places and times however, where IR and albedo change together to either enhance or to suppress outward radiation flux.

c)  The typical enhancement of rainfall and updraft motion in the cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds within heavy raining meso-scale disturbance areas acts to increase the return flow subsidence in the surrounding broader clear and partly cloudy regions (Figure 4). Global rainfall increases typically cause an overall reduction of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) in the upper and middle tropospheric levels of the broader scale surrounding subsidence regions. This leads to a net enhancement of IR to space, both over the tropics and the globe. Albedo is typically decreased as much or more than IR is increased in the broadscale clear and partly cloudy areas. But over the rainy and cloudy areas, the albedo is greatly enhanced. The albedo enhancement over the cloud-rain areas tends to increase the net (IR + albedo) energy to space more than the weak suppression of (IR + albedo) in the clear and partly cloudy areas.

d)  We observe that upper level RH and moisture content (q) at 300 mb (~10 km) and 400 mb (~8 km – not shown) are typically reduced for increasing amounts of net tropical rainfall. This is a direct consequence of the slightly greater return flow mass subsidence coming from the smaller areas of strong and concentrated updrafts of the deep cumulonimbus (Cb) rainclouds. This lowering of upper-level water vapor over the broad subsidence areas slightly increases the optical depth (τ) and slightly lowers the radiation emission level to a warmer layer where more IR energy is able to be radiated to space.

The NCEP reanalysis data shows that there has been a steady decrease in upper tropospheric RH over the last 40 years (Figure 6). ISCCP data for the tropics show a small decrease in precipitable water (PW) since the mid 1980s (Figure 7). We do not find that net tropospheric water vapor content is necessarily related to rainfall rate. Increases in tropical and/or global rainfall typically lead to decreases in upper tropospheric water vapor content. This is in contrast with the general assumption of most climate scientists who believe that as global rainfall increases that tropospheric water vapor content will have to rise. This thinking fails to take into account the nature of the small-scale cumulus convective units. With the proper convective cloud model it is quite plausible that upper tropospheric moisture undergoes a decrease as tropical and/or global rainfall rates go upward. A long observational paper is presently being prepared to more fully document our many observations of the association of changes of rainfall with albedo and IR.

4. IMPLICATIONS OF THESE OBSERVATIONS

The above measurements are at odds with the GCM simulations of precipitation increase associated with rising CO2 amounts. Most GCMs show large upper tropospheric tropical temperature and water vapor increases to be associated with increased rates of precipitation. We do not observe such upper tropospheric temperature and moisture gains with rainfall enhancement. The GCM simulations assume that CO2’s blockage of IR stimulates an enhancement of extra rainfall which causes yet larger increases in upper level temperature-moisture and consequently causes stronger reductions in IR energy to space. These assumptions require the models to impose an increase in water vapor (to keep RH constant) as upper level temperature gains occur. We do not observe such upper-level temperature and moisture rises. We do not find that upper tropospheric temperature and RH are necessarily related to each other as the GCMs typically assume. We also do not find that upper and lower tropospheric water vapor amounts are strongly correlated with one another as the GCMs do.

It is possible for the troposphere to gain energy from increases in CO2 and to simultaneously enhance its radiation to space to largely balance out all or most of the CO2 energy gains. Such a compensation will allow CO2 to increase with very little or no gain in tropospheric temperature. Such energy compensation can occur by CO2 increases causing a lowering of the radiation emission level to a warmer temperature and thereby increasing the outward IR (σT4) flux to space. The energy compensation can also occur by assuming that the CO2-induced extra cloudiness-rainfall causes a compensating rise in albedo. Or, the CO2-induced blockage could be compensated for (as the GCMs have chosen to do) by having upper tropospheric temperature rise by amounts of 3-4oC or more. Our observations suggest that such an upper-level warming and consequent moistening process due to rising levels of CO2 does not occur.

Read Full Study…