97% of peer reviewed studies agree that man made climate change is occurring

“We must remember that while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts”

A recent study found that an overwhelming 97% of peer reviewed studies agree that man made climate change is occurring. Humanity is facing a challenge unlike any we’ve ever had to confront. We are in an unprecedented period of change- scientists from all over the globe have been saying this for decades but still there is divide in public opinion on climate change. People say things like “There is no evidence” or “Scientists don’t agree it’s caused by humans” and at this stage in climatological research, we can safely put those two notions to bed. Say goodnight. Firstly, the evidence is overwhelming. There seems to be a misconception that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study- which, of course, it is not. Climate science is one of the most researched, collaborative and published sciences that modern civilisation has seen and has been focused on “key indicators” over the years that range from increasing land air temperatures and rising sea levels to increasing heat content of the Ocean, sea ice loss in the Arctic and the acidification of the Oceans. The changes to our planets climatic system can be seen, in plain sight, year after year- there is no dispute about this. We must remember that while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts and the fact is our planet is getting warmer.

The second preconception is that “Scientists do not agree that it is caused by humans”- this is also a fallacy. In order to debunk this, it makes sense to focus on the consensus among experts in this area; for example most would prefer the opinion of an oncologist over a dentist when it came to cancer treatment etc. So, if we focus on the field of climate science, we can verify an overwhelming consensus within the community on the realities of anthropogenic climate change.

This consensus has recently been analysed and published (16th of May 2013) in the peer review journal “Environmental Research Letters” (http://bit.ly/101LZzw). The study, undertaken by the University of Queensland in conjunction with Skeptical Science is the most comprehensive survey of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming ever done. The research team surveyed the abstracts of over 12,000 scientific articles published between 1991 and 2011 on the subjects of “global climate change” or “global warming” to see to what extent they endorsed or rejected the idea that global warming over the past 150 years is real and is mainly caused by humans.

The research showed that among the 4,000+ abstracts that expressed an opinion on the man-made cause of climate change, 97.1% endorsed the concept, 1.7% rejected human causes and 1% were undecided. A second phase of the study involved contacting the authors of the scientific papers, asking them to rate their own papers themselves, producing very similar results. Among papers self-rated as expressing an opinion on man-made global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

The scientists in question came from at least 74 different countries showing that diversity does not effect consensus. For transparency, all of the papers analysed can be seen in the supplementary data accompanying the publication. Furthermore, the research group have developed a Interactive Rating System, encouraging people to rate the papers themselves and compare their ratings to the findings. The group openly states that they “welcome criticism” with the view that “further scrutiny will improve the reliability of results”- see the website here: http://bit.ly/106vXYG

From this point on, in relation to climate change, we really need to remember that it doesn’t matter what you believe – only what you can prove. This is science, not philosophy and the clock is ticking.

-Jean and Daniel, of The Earth Story.

For further information, see the skeptical science website: http://bit.ly/13zvRd2

I fucking love science

Related articles

• Survey finds 97% climate science papers agree warming is man-made | Dana Nuccitelli (guardian.co.uk)
• Scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change (sciencedaily.com)

Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists

Millions face starvation as world warms, say scientists | Global development | The Observer.

World is unprepared for changes that will see parts of Africa turned into disaster areas, say food experts

• John Vidal
• The Observer,
• Saturday 13 April 2013
  

Corn in the hands of a farmworker in South Africa. Photograph: Greatstock Photographic Library/Alamy

Millions of people could become destitute in Africa and Asia as staple foods more than double in price by 2050 as a result of extreme temperatures, floods and droughts that will transform the way the world farms.

As food experts gather at two major conferences to discuss how to feed the nine billion people expected to be alive in 2050, leading scientists have told the Observer that food insecurity risks turning parts of Africa into permanent disaster areas. Rising temperatures will also have a drastic effect on access to basic foodstuffs, with potentially dire consequences for the poor.

Frank Rijsberman, head of the world’s 15 international CGIAR crop research centres, which study food insecurity, said: “Food production will have to rise 60% by 2050 just to keep pace with expected global population increase and changing demand. Climate change comes on top of that. The annual production gains we have come to expect … will be taken away by climate change. We are not so worried about the total amount of food produced so much as the vulnerability of the one billion people who are without food already and who will be hit hardest by climate change. They have no capacity to adapt.”

America’s agricultural economy is set to undergo dramatic changes over the next three decades, as warmer temperatures devastate crops, according to a US government report. The draft US National Climate Assessment report predicts that a gradually warming climate and unpredictable severe weather, such as the drought that last year spread across two-thirds of the continental United States, will have serious consequences for farmers.

The research by 60 scientists predicts that all crops will be affected by the temperature shift as well as livestock and fruit harvests. The changing climate, it says, is likely to lead to more pests and less effective herbicides. The $50bn Californian wine industry could shrink as much as 70% by 2050.

The report lays bare the stark consequences for the $300bn US farm industry, stating: “Many agricultural regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production. The rising incidence of weather extremes will have increasingly negative impacts on crop and livestock production. Climate disruptions have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further over the next 25 years.

“Critical thresholds are already being exceeded. Many regions will experience declines in crop and livestock production from increased stress due to weeds, diseases, insect pests and other climate change-induced stresses. Climate disruptions to agricultural production have increased in the recent past and are projected to increase further”.

Lead author Jerry Hatfield, director of the US government’s national laboratory for agriculture and the environment, said that climate change was already causing weather extremes to worsen. Very hot nights, fewer cool days and more heatwaves, storms and floods have already devastated crops and will have “increasingly negative” impacts, he said.

The report follows recent disastrous harvests in Russia, Ukraine, Australia and the US. In 2010, climate-driven factors led to a 33% drop in wheat production in Russia and a 19% drop in Ukraine. Separate climate events in each case led to a 14% drop in Canada’s wheat output, and a 9% drop in Australia.

A separate US government-funded study of the fertile Lower Mekong basin, which includes Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand and Laos, states that temperatures there could rise twice as much as previously expected, devastating food supplies for the 100 million people expected to live there by 2050. “We’ve found that this region is going to experience climate extremes in temperature and rainfall beyond anything that we expected”, says Jeremy Carew-Reid, author of the Climate Change Adaptation and Impact Study for the Lower Mekong.

Two major food security summits are being held in Ireland, organised by UN World Food Programme, the CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change and the Mary Robinson Climate Justice foundation.

Ertharin Cousin, the UN’s World Food Programme director, said: “We are entering an uncertain and risky period. Climate change is the game changer that increases exposure to high and volatile food prices, and increases the vulnerability of the hungry poor, especially those living in conflict zones or areas of marginal agricultural productivity. We must act quickly to protect the world’s poorest people.”

Jump to comments (620)

Related articles

• Climate change will threaten wine production, study shows (guardian.co.uk)
• By 2050… (onaquasirelatednote.wordpress.com)
• Top Ten Dreadful Effects of Climate Change (dissidentvoice.org)

Is There Intelligent Life on Earth? – Carl Sagan on Environmentalism and Chem E on Dark Energy

Is There Intelligent Life on Earth? – Carl Sagan on Environmentalism – YouTube.

The following is on dark matter and how perhaps we are failing to comprehend what is around us because of our limited and myopic intellectual prison.     Lou

From and with thanks to: http://darkmattersalot.com

To test human intelligence from afar, they create benign crop circles in the fields, created with dark energy and with revealing messages about dark energy and quantum mechanics, unifying the phenomenons humans experience and which they suffer through and struggle to try and explain with their funny book physics.  These phenomenons also cause much untold suffering on this planet and they are trying to let us know it does not have to be this way.

 They sit back and watch.  They see kids and adult humans visiting the fields and lying down and wiggling in the circles.  They watch their top physicist “experts” scoff in disbelief as they reveal the largest weakness of the human race, egotism and arrogance, a manifestation of drinking too much of your own bath water, believing that because you are an “expert” in one thing you must know everything.  Children will always have open minds until adults change them.

A few adults and scientists that have held on to an open mind about the universe move slowly forward with their research, tediously cataloging and documenting the circles .  If only the top scientists would open up to what they are seeing, humanity could accelerate quickly forward, possibly in time to move into the galaxy, before Earth once again becomes uninhabitable as vacuum energy changes over time, magnetic fields change and biodiversity dwindles. Earth has provided a very good environment for that cosmic soup of dark energy and baryonic matter mixture to create some wonderful biodiversity.  Entropic quantum gravity has allowed this, but it will also limit the lives of any organisms within its varying flux.

Move quickly humans, much awaits those that act. There will be much suffering but still time. Others will be waiting.

Godspeed

Chem E

http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/03/15/is-there-intelligent-life-on-earth/#comment-7286

Indian coal power plants kill 120,000 people a year, says Greenpeace

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/10/india-coal-plants-emissions-greenpeace

Environmental group’s report on pollution in the country warns emissions may cause 20m new asthma cases a year

• John Vidal
• The Guardian, Sunday 10 March 2013
  

New Delhi children take anti-smog precautions. Photograph: Sanjeev Verma/Getty

India‘s breakneck pace of industrialisation is causing a public health crisis with 80-120,000 premature deaths and 20m new asthma cases a year due to air pollution from coal power plants, a Greenpeace report warns.

The first study of the health impact of India’s dash for coal, conducted by a former World Bank head of pollution, says the plants cost hospitals $3.3-$4.6bn (£2.2-£3.1bn) a year — a figure certain to rise as the coal industry struggles to keep up with demand for electricity.

The Delhi and Kolkata regions were found to be the most polluted but Mumbai, western Maharashtra, Eastern Andhra Pradesh and the Chandrapur- Nagpur region in Vidarbha were all affected.

The study, which took data from 111 major power plants, says there is barely any regulation or inspection of pollution. “Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and millions of asthma attacks, heart attacks, hospitalisations, lost workdays and associated costs to society could be avoided, with the use of cleaner fuels, [and] stricter emission standards and the installation and use of the technologies required to achieve substantial reductions in these pollutants,” said the report. “There is a conspicuous lack of regulations for power plant stack emissions. Enforcement of what standards [which] do exist, is nearly non-existent,” it says.

India is the world’s second largest coal burner after China, generating 210 GW of electricity a year, mostly from coal. But it is likely to become the largest if plans to generate a further 160 GW annually are approved.

“Thousands of lives can be saved every year if India tightens its emissions standards, introduces limits for pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury and institutes mandatory monitoring of emissions at plant stacks,” said the report’s author, Sarath Guttikunda, a former head of the World Bank’s pollution division.

Nearly 400 million people in India have no electricity and power outages are common. The pressure to generate power has led to tens of thousands of homes being moved to make way for mines or plants. There are complaints that the power is mostly exported to large cities and heavy industry while local people are left with pollution and toxic dumps.

Vinuta Gopal of Greenpeace said: “The ongoing coal expansion is irrational and dangerous. Coal mining is destroying India’s forests, tribal communities and endangered species, and now we know the pollution it emits when burned is killing thousands. Coal has failed to deliver energy security. We need a moratorium on new coal plants and ambitious policy incentives to unlock the huge potential India has in efficiency measures, wind and solar.”

Related articles

• Coal Killed 100,000 in India in 2012 (sierraclub.typepad.com)

100 Items That Disappear First in a Disaster

http://seasonedcitizenprepper.com/

Found the following from the site above. I find the list of items fascinating as they reveal the artifacts that we think we cannot live without in 2013. This list keeps changing. 

Follow the links if you want to participate in the discussion.  Lou

100 Items That Disappear First in a Disaster

1. Generators
(Good ones cost dearly. Gas storage, risky. Noisy…target of thieves; maintenance, etc.)

2. Water Filters/Purifiers

3. Portable Toilets (Increasing in price every two months.)

4. Seasoned Firewood
(About $100 per cord; wood takes 6 – 12 mos. to become dried, for home uses.)

5. Lamp Oil, Wicks, Lamps
(First choice: Buy CLEAR oil. If scarce, stockpile ANY!)

6. Coleman Fuel
(URGENT $2.69-$3.99/gal. Impossible to stockpile too much.)

7. Guns, Ammunition, Pepper Spray, Knives, Clubs, Bats and Slingshots

8. Hand-Can openers and hand egg beaters, whisks (Life savers!)

9. Honey/Syrups/white, brown sugars

10. Rice – Beans – Wheat
(White rice is now $12.95 – 50# bag. Sam’s Club, stock depleted often.)

11. Vegetable oil (for cooking)
(Without it food burns/must be boiled, etc.)

12. Charcoal and Lighter fluid (Will become scarce suddenly.)

13. Water containers
(Urgent Item to obtain. Any size. Small: HARD CLEAR PLASTIC ONLY)

14. Mini Heater head (Propane) (Without this item, propane won’t heat a room.)

15. Grain Grinder (Non-electric)

16. Propane Cylinders

17. Michael Hyatt’s Y2K Survival Guide
(BEST single y2k handbook for sound advice/tips.)

18. Mantles: Aladdin, Coleman, etc.
(Without this item, longer-term lighting is difficult.)

19. Baby Supplies: Diapers/formula/ointments/aspirin, etc

20. Washboards, Mop Bucket w/wringer (for Laundry)

21. Cook stoves
(Propane, Coleman and Kerosene)

22. Vitamins
(Critical, due 10 Y2K-forced daily canned food diets.)

23. Propane Cylinder Handle-Holder
(Urgent: Small canister use is dangerous without this item.)

24. Feminine Hygiene/Haircare/Skin products

25. Thermal underwear 
(Tops and bottoms)

26. Bow saws, axes and hatchets and Wedges (also, honing oil)

27. Aluminum foil Reg. and Heavy. Duty 
(Great Cooking and Barter item)

28. Gasoline containers 
(Plastic or Metal)

29. Garbage bags 
(Impossible to have too many.)

30. Toilet Paper, Kleenex, paper towel

31. Milk – Powdered and Condensed 
(Shake liquid every 3 to 4 months.)

32. Garden seeds (Non-hybrid) (A MUST)

33. Clothes pins/line/hangers (A MUST)

34. Coleman’s Pump Repair Kit: 1(800) 835-3278

35. Tuna Fish (in oil)

36. Fire extinguishers 
(or.. large box of Baking soda in every room…)

37. First aid kits

38. Batteries (all sizes…buy furthest-out for Expiration Dates)

39. Garlic, spices and vinegar, baking supplies

40. BIG DOGS (and plenty of dog food)

41. Flour, yeast and salt

42. Matches 
(“Strike Anywhere” preferred. Boxed, wooden matches will go first.)

43. Writing paper/pads/pencils/solar calculators

44. Insulated ice chests 
(good for keeping items from freezing in Wintertime)

45. Work boots, belts, Levis and durable shirts

46. Flashlights/Light Sticks and torches, “No.76 Dietz” Lanterns

47. Journals, Diaries and Scrapbooks 
(Jot down ideas, feelings, experiences: Historic times!)

48. Garbage cans Plastic 
(great for storage, water, transporting – if with wheels)

49. Men’s Hygiene: Shampoo, Toothbrush/paste, Mouthwash/floss, nail clippers, etc

50. Cast iron cookware (sturdy, efficient)

51. Fishing supplies/tools

52. Mosquito coils/repellent sprays/creams

53. Duct tape

54. Tarps/stakes/twine/nails/rope/spikes

55. Candles

56. Laundry detergent (Liquid)

57. Backpacks and Duffle bags

58. Garden tools and supplies

59. Scissors, fabrics and sewing supplies

60. Canned Fruits, Veggies, Soups, stews, etc.

61. Bleach 
(plain, NOT scented: 4 to 6% sodium hypochlorite)

62. Canning supplies (Jars/lids/wax)

63. Knives and Sharpening tools: files, stones, steel

64. Bicycles…Tires/tubes/pumps/chains, etc.

65. Sleeping bags and blankets/pillows/mats

66. Carbon Monoxide Alarm (battery powered)

67. Board Games Cards, Dice

68. d-Con Rat poison, MOUSE PRUFE II, Roach Killer

69. Mousetraps, Ant traps and cockroach magnets

70. Paper plates/cups/utensils (stock up, folks…)

71. Baby Wipes, oils, waterless and Anti-bacterial soap 
(saves a lot of water)

72. Rain gear, rubberized boots, etc.

73. Shaving supplies 
(razors and creams, talc, after shave)

74. Hand pumps and siphons 
(for water and for fuels)

75. Soy sauce, vinegar, bouillons/gravy/soup base

76. Reading glasses

77. Chocolate/Cocoa/Tang/Punch (water enhancers)

78. “Survival-in-a-Can”

79. Woolen clothing, scarves/ear-muffs/mittens

80. BSA – New 1998 – Boy Scout Handbook 
(also, Leader’s Catalog)

81. Roll-on Window Insulation Kit (MANCO)

82. Graham crackers, saltines, pretzels, Trail mix/Jerky

83. Popcorn, Peanut Butter, Nuts

84. Socks, Underwear, T-shirts, etc. (extras)

85. Lumber (all types)

86. Wagons and carts 
(for transport to and from open Flea markets)

87. Cots and Inflatable Mattresses (for extra guests)

88. Gloves: Work/warming/gardening, etc.

89. Lantern Hangers

90. Screen Patches, glue, nails, screws, nuts and bolts

91. Teas

92. Coffee

93. Cigarettes

94. Wine/Liquors (for bribes, medicinal, etc.)

95. Paraffin wax

96. Glue, nails, nuts, bolts, screws, etc.

97. Chewing gum/candies

98. Atomizers (for cooling/bathing)

99. Hats and cotton neckerchiefs

100. Goats/chickens

Join the discussion—>>>

http://seasonedcitizenprepper.com/

All rights reserved. On republishing this post you must provide link to original post.

Whatever happened to global warming?

Whatever happened to global warming? – The Globe and Mail.

Margaret Wente

The Globe and Mail

 Jan. 24 2013

Are you freezing? Join the crowd. Arctic air is sweeping across Canada. Snow and ice are wreaking havoc on Britain. Russians are dying from the cold. And Germans are sneaking into forests to cut down trees because their fuel bills are so high.

Hey! Whatever happened to global warming?

That’s a naive question, of course. Everybody knows there’s little or no connection between daily weather events and climate change (except when there’s a heat wave, a hurricane or some other natural disaster, in which case global warming is invariably to blame). Experts will tell you that our bitter winter weather proves nothing about climate change – that the world is still warming up at an alarming rate.

Well, maybe not so alarming. Global temperatures have now held steady for 16 years. They levelled off around 1997. The latest data come from Britain’s weather and climate agency, the Met Office, which says you can’t draw any conclusions from such a short span of time. Still, the data are proving awkward for leading climatologists, who are reluctantly admitting that their projections have their limits. Nor is the news likely to increase support for activists such as NASA scientist James Hansen, who warned, in an interview with The Guardian back in 2009, that Barack Obama had only four years to set an example for the world and avert disaster.

I’m not questioning the basic science of global warming. The last decade was the warmest on record, and the next one may be even warmer. My point is that our uncertainty about the future is rather great. Our economic models turned out to be lousy. Why should our climate models be better?

“Climate models do a poor job of making predictions on decadal time scales,” Judith Curry, the head of the climate science department at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told me in an e-mail. “Climate models capture some elements of climate change, but they have deficiencies in the simulation of natural internal variability.”

In other words, climate change is very, very complicated. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning fossil fuels are just one of many factors that affect the climate. Other factors – ocean temperatures, soot, clouds, solar radiation etc. – turn out to be a lot more important than we thought and aren’t so easily captured by computer models.

I’m also skeptical about our ability to do something intelligent about it. Some of our policy responses to climate change have been a complete disaster. The European Union had the bright idea of setting up a system to trade carbon emission permits. So how has that worked out? The recession came along, and today the permits are all but worthless. According to the Swiss bank UBS, the scheme has cost European consumers about $280-billion for “almost zero impact” on carbon emissions. Meanwhile, artificially high electricity prices have made many European industries uncompetitive.

The trouble with many well-intentioned climate policies is that the law of unintended consequences works overtime. Take the sorry history of biofuels, which were supposed to green up the world by substituting for fossil fuels. The rush to biofuels has caused massive deforestation, disrupted commodity markets and pushed food prices to record highs. Poor people are suffering so that rich Europeans can get 10 per cent of their fuel from renewable sources by 2020 – all in the name of saving the planet. Meanwhile, governments are extracting hundreds of billions of dollars from frigid German and British consumers to pay for extravagant subsidies of uneconomic solar and wind power sources. (That’s why the Germans are cutting down trees this winter.)

Many people say the risk of climate change is so great that we need to act now, because doing something is better than doing nothing. But that’s not always true. So far, global warming policies have probably done far more harm to the planet than global warming has. Climate change is still rather poorly understood. Climate policy is hard. We should be humble about what we know – and what we don’t.

Now bundle up.

Harvard Professor David Keith, Proponent for Geoengineering – video

Harvard Professor David Keith, Proponent for Geoengineering – 11/22/12 – YouTube.

What he is not saying is that these experiments have been going on for quite a while now.  Lou

From YouTube Description:

Nov 27, 2012

Interview with David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, from Calgary: A leading scientist in the field of geo-engineering.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

B.C. geoengineering experiment attracts worldwide attention at UN

B.C. geoengineering experiment attracts worldwide attention at UN | CTV News.

A friend and I were discussing chemtrails yesterday, we were hit hard here, and wondered why our government is not telling us what is going on in the skies. I did a search on Google Scholar and found that our own government is heavily involved in Geo-engineering/ chemtrails.

Perhaps it is time for us to take preventive measures, as our own governments are deceiving us by not telling us what is going on. I see the streets filled with people with chemical masks in the near future. Think of the implications of that. It will show that people do not trust their own governments. Lou

CTV News

The Canadian Press
 Sunday, Oct. 28, 2012

VANCOUVER — Canada may be called onto the carpet this week as nations gather in the United Kingdom to negotiate the terms of an international treaty to regulate the controversial practice of geoengineering.

A First Nations salmon restoration group in Haida Gwaii has attracted worldwide attention after dumping more than 100 metric tonnes of iron into the Pacific Ocean in a process known as ocean fertilization.

Many scientists from around the world have condemned the unsanctioned experiment, and the federal government says it is investigating.

But Canada is a hotbed of geoengineering, says a watchdog group, and has been involved in similar experiments in the past.

Geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the environment as a means of combating climate change.

“Some countries would like to see geoengineering more acceptable than it has been, and Canada’s in that bunch of countries,” said Jim Thomas, spokesman for Montreal-based ETC Group, which opposes the practice.

Inside a chemtrails airplane

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and geoengineering is “potentially very attractive,” Thomas said.

“You do have governments, and some large industries and some of the think tanks they sponsor who would prefer to see us go down the route of geoengineering. That if geoengineering could be touted as a cheap and quick and easy fix, that means we don’t have to do all the heavy lifting of reducing emissions and changing our economy, then they would prefer that.”

Canada funded and participated in two ocean fertilization experiments in 1999 and 2002 prior to signing onto a voluntary UN moratorium.

In July 2002, Fisheries Department scientists participated in a small-scale ocean project 1,500 kilometres off the coast of British Columbia called Subarctic Ecosystem Response to Iron Enrichment Study.

The iron causes a phytoplankton bloom, a natural sponge for carbon from the atmosphere. As organism feed off the plankton and die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, the carbon is trapped down there. Previous, smaller-scale tests show the effect was short-term.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s current research, though, is limited to computer simulations, spokesman Frank Stanek said in an email response to questions.

“Since that time, the department has not been involved in the deployment of iron solution into the ocean,” Stanek wrote.

ETC Group, which works on issues of how new technologies can impact the world’s poor and vulnerable, lists eleven projects that have taken place or are in the works, including a hail suppression project in Alberta that continues today.

Funded by a consortium of insurance firms, the project seeds clouds over the Prairie province with silver iodide, to shrink ice stones.

Such geoengineering projects are controversial, but on the rise in the face of climate change.

In the incident off Haida Gwaii, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corp. of the village of Old Massett dumped iron into the ocean in late July. The effort was two-fold: to create a phytoplankton bloom that would one, spur salmon returns, and two, capture carbon for profit.

The iron causes a phytoplankton bloom, a natural sponge for carbon from the atmosphere. As organism feed off the plankton and die, sinking to the bottom of the ocean, the carbon is trapped down there. Previous, smaller-scale tests show the effect was short-term.

The negative reaction in the scientific world was swift.

There are several voluntary and mandatory international moratoria on ocean dumping and specifically on iron fertilization, and Environment Canada is investigating the experiment.

A regulatory regime to address exactly the kind of incident that took place off Haida Gwaii is up for negotiation at the meeting next week in London for the London Convention and Protocol, which bans dumping toxins at sea.

Adam Sweet, a spokesman for the Environment Department, said Canadian officials will be in London for the meeting on the London Convention from Oct. 29 to Nov. 2, and “in addition to the regular business at these meetings… parties will be discussing the issue of ocean fertilization.”

The delegates will stress that no permission was granted for the experiment, and ocean fertilization is not allowed except for accredited scientific research.

“Minister Kent will direct his officials to inform conference delegates that over the past six years, Canada has strengthened its enforcement regime, and that Canada will use the full extent of our enforcement abilities to ensure that those who violate Canadian environmental law are caught, and charged,” Sweet wrote.

The Old Massett experiment will be a hot topic, said Wendy Watson-Wright, assistant director general and executive secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

“It has concerns for Canada, concerns for the U.S., concerns for anybody on the Pacific but also, I think, for anybody on an ocean because it is one ocean,” Watson-Wright said in an interview from Ottawa.

The experiment, which has been condemned by several Haida leaders, was much larger than any previous experiment, she pointed out.

“There are just so many questions that we see this as a very dangerous precedent.”

Now the important thing is to monitor the fallout, she said.

“But monitoring of what and where? That’s what needs to be decided and it does require the international scientific community to be inputting into those decisions.”

Related articles

• Geoengineered Snow Storms Wreaking Havoc around the Globe (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

 

Climate change set to make America hotter, drier and more disaster-prone

Climate change set to make America hotter, drier and more disaster-prone | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Draft report from NCA makes clear link between climate change and extreme weather as groups urge Obama to take action

Friday 11 January

• Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Friday

The report says steps taken by Obama to reduce emissions are ‘not close to sufficient’ to prevent the most severe consequences of climate change. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP

Future generations of Americans can expect to spend 25 days a year sweltering in temperatures above 100F (38C), with climate change on course to turn the country into a hotter, drier, and more disaster-prone place.

The National Climate Assessment, released in draft form on Friday , provided the fullest picture to date of the real-time effects of climate change on US life, and the most likely consequences for the future.

The 1,000-page report, the work of the more than 300 government scientists and outside experts, was unequivocal on the human causes of climate change, and on the links between climate change and extreme weather.

“Climate change is already affecting the American people,” the draft report said. “Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense including heat waves, heavy downpours and in some regions floods and drought. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and Arctic sea ice are melting.”

The report, which is not due for adoption until 2014, was produced to guide federal, state and city governments in America in making long-term plans.

By the end of the 21st century, climate change is expected to result in increased risk of asthma and other public health emergencies, widespread power blackouts, and mass transit shutdowns, and possibly shortages of food.

“Proactively preparing for climate change can reduce impacts, while also facilitating a more rapid and efficient response to changes as they happen,” said Katharine Jacobs, the director of the National Climate Assessment.

The report will be open for public comment on Monday.

Environmental groups said they hoped the report would provide Barack Obama with the scientific evidence to push for measures that would slow or halt the rate of climate change – sparing the country some of the worst effects.

The report states clearly that the steps taken by Obama so far to reduce emissions are “not close to sufficient” to prevent the most severe consequences of climate change.

“As climate change and its impacts are becoming more prevalent, Americans face choices,” the report said. “Beyond the next few decades, the amount of climate change will still largely be determined by the choices society makes about emissions. Lower emissions mean less future warming and less severe impacts. Higher emissions would mean more warming and more severe impacts.”

As the report made clear: no place in America had gone untouched by climate change. Nowhere would be entirely immune from the effects of future climate change.

A heatwave swept across the US in 2011, with temperatures reaching over 110F (43C). Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP Some of those changes are already evident: 2012 was by far the hottest year on record, fully a degree hotter than the last such record – an off-the-charts rate of increase.

Those high temperatures were on course to continue for the rest of the century, the draft report said. It noted that average US temperatures had increased by about 1.5F since 1895, with more than 80% of this increase since 1980.

The rise will be even steeper in future, with the next few decades projected for temperatures 2 to 4 degrees warmer in most areas. By 2100, if climate change continues on its present course, the country can expect to see 25 days a year with temperatures above 100F.

Night-time temperatures will also stay high, providing little respite from the heat.

Certain regions are projected to heat up even sooner. West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware can expect a doubling of days hotter than 95 degrees by the 2050s. In Texas and Oklahoma, the draft report doubled the probability of extreme heat events.

Those extreme temperatures would also exact a toll on public health, with worsening air pollution, and on infrastructure increasing the load for ageing power plants.

This 8 November 2011 image shows a storm bearing down on Alaska. Photograph: Ho/AFP/Getty Images But nowhere will see changes as extreme as Alaska, the report said.

“The most dramatic evidence is in Alaska, where average temperatures have increased more than twice as fast as the rest of the country,” the draft report said. “Of all the climate-related changes in the US, the rapid decline of Arctic sea ice cover in the last decade may be the most striking of all.”

Other regions will face different extreme weather scenarios. The north-east, in particular, is at risk of coastal flooding because of sea-level rise and storm surges, as well as river flooding, because of an increase in heavy downpours.

A flooded farm along the Mississippi River is seen in Cairo, Illinois. Photograph: Stephen Lance Dennee/AP “The north-east has experienced a greater increase in extreme precipitation over the past few decades than any other region in the US,” the report said. Between 1958 and 2010, the north-east saw a 74% increase in heavy downpours.

The midwest was projected to enjoy a longer growing season – but also an increased risk of extreme events like last year’s drought. By mid-century, the combination of temperature increases and heavy rainfall or drought were expected to pull down yields of major US food crops, the report warned, threatening both American and global food security.

The report is the most ambitious scientific exercise ever undertaken to catalogue the real-time effects of climate change, and predict possible outcomes in the future.

It involved more than 300 government scientists and outside experts, compared to around 30 during the last such effort when George W Bush was president. Its findings were also much broader in scope, Jacobs said.

There were still unknowns though, the report conceded, especially about how the loss of sea ice in Greenland and Antarctica will affect future sea-level rise.

Campaign groups said they hoped the report would spur Obama to act on climate change in his second term. “The draft assessment offers a perfect opportunity for President Obama at the outset of his second term,” said Lou Leonard, director of the climate change programme for the World Wildlife Fund. “When a similar report was released in 2009, the Administration largely swept it under the rug. This time, the President should use it to kick-start a national conversation on climate change. “

However, the White House was exceedingly cautious on the draft release, noting in a blogpost: “The draft NCA is a scientific document—not a policy document—and does not make recommendations regarding actions that might be taken in response to climate change.”

Related articles

• Climate change set to make America hotter, drier and more disaster-prone (sott.net)
• Hottest on record: 2012 was America’s warmest ever year, scientists say (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)
• Country getting hotter – climate report (skynews.com.au)
• Report: We’re on pace to heat the U.S. by 10°F (washingtonpost.com)
• Climate Assessment Paints Grim Picture (huffingtonpost.com)

Belgian Environmental Study Corroborates Existence and Effects of Weather Modification

Activist Post: Belgian Environmental Study Corroborates Existence and Effects of Weather Modification.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

Even as the mainstream media and a television-obsessed American public refuse to admit the existence of chemtrails and government-sponsored weather modification programs, the evidence continues to mount with ever-increasing speed that not only do these programs exist, but they are also effective and widespread.

In addition to the recent study published in Environmental Research Letters entitled, “Cost Analysis of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Delivery Systems,” where the costs of delivering tonnes of aerosols into the stratosphere were examined in terms of a variety of different means, a 2010 study undertaken on behalf of the Belfort Group, a Belgian “environmental watchdog” organization, also corroborates much of the information compiled by citizens and activists the world over regarding the existence of chemtrails and stratospheric weather modification programs.

The study, entitled, “Contrail Science, Its Impact On Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted By The United States And Its Allies,” seeks to highlight “the specific problems associated with contrails emitted by aircraft, the manipulation for defense purposes of some of these trails by the United States government and the subsequent effect on quality of life.”

Making a distinction between four different types of man-made “clouds” – contrails, chemtrails, distrails (the tunnel produced when a plane passes through a stable cloud), and wingtip vortices (the vortex caused by planes flying at high speed) – the study focuses on contrails and chemtrails.

Thus, the report defines chemtrails by stating,

Chemtrail is the contraction of ‘chemical trail’ and is used by some sources to denote intentional spraying by airplanes for military or political purposes and that may be harmful to public health. A more general name is ‘aviation smog,’ which combines contrails, distrails, and ‘chemtrails.’ Authors referring to chemtrails claim that this phenomena is much more persistent than contrails and when sprayed in a grid it is able to cover vast area’s.

Although officially denied by government sources many countries performed tests for ‘cloud seeding’ to either generate precipitation where it was needed or to prevent precipitation where it is unwanted. At this moment only the Russian and Chinese governments admit that they use particular matter in order to manipulate weather patterns.

Divided evenly between the analysis of the effects of contrails and chemtrails, the Belfort study details some interesting findings regarding the effects on both the weather and human health by traditional contrails in addition to the much more dangerous chemtrails.

According to the study, in regards to the average daily temperature and the overall cloud cover generated by contrails on a regular basis, a survey of the average Diurnal Temperature Range (DTR) was conducted during the rare period that commercial air traffic was grounded on and in the days after September 11, 2001.

 It was subsequently determined that a temperature increase of about 10 C occurred during that period in comparison with the normal values.

The report states,

The increase is larger than during the 11-14 September period for the previous 30 years, giving ammunition to critics who state that weather conditions at this specific period were very extraordinary and no scientific based conclusions could be taken. However even more surprising is the fact that the 11-14 September increase in DTR was more than twice the national average for regions in the United States where contrail coverage has previously reported to have been most abundant, such as the Midwest, Northeast, and Northwest regions.

Furthermore, the report suggests that, after the resumption of normal air traffic, there was a temperature drop of 0.8⁰ C which it then uses to justify claims that contrails and air traffic do affect climate.

The report also states that Cirrus clouds, which are similar to the types of “cloud” formations caused by chemtrail spraying, has a significant effect on both climate and temperature. It reads,

The climate of the earth results from an energy balance between absorbed sunlight and radiative losses of heat from earth and its atmosphere to space. Clouds are an important modulator in this balance. Clouds reflect sunlight back towards space, which reduces the solar energy available to the earth – also called the Albedo effect. Clouds also reduce radiative heat losses to space (greenhouse effect). Which of these two opposing processes dominates depends on many parameters include cloud particle composition, cloud structure, cloud cover, and cloud location. Changes to only one of these parameters can have significant implications for climate.

The greenhouse effect is weak for low altitude clouds, so their albedo effect dominates and they cool the Earth’s climate. In contrast, cold high altitude Cirrus clouds may either cool or warm the climate. This will prove to be a key element whether to determine if weather modification are being conducted on the planet in order to reduce ‘global warming.’

Cirrus clouds thus have a strong greenhouse effect, which may outweigh their Albedo effect losses. As the importance of both opposing effects depends critically on little understood properties, theoretical calculations of the climatic effects of Cirrus are controversial. The main uncertainty stems from a current inability to calculate the scattering of sunlight in Cirrus clouds, since they contain a multitude of ice crystal shapes and sizes, and are irregular in structure. Even more, Stefan Kinne of the NASA Ames Research Center states clearly that the Cirrus Albedo effect is severely underestimated by calculations.[1]

This proves that knowledge in this field of science is quite limited and extensive research is mandatory in order to fully understand the impact of Cirrus clouds on climate. In this respect it is noteworthy that evidence of thin Cirrus clouds in the Stratosphere has already been established.[2]

With this in mind, the study attributes a substantial amount of climate, environmental, and health risks to the existence of basic contrails, a natural result of regular air traffic.

However, it should also be noted that the Belfort report seems to present an apparent confusion in regards to its own terminology, i.e. contrails vs. chemtrails. This is because the term “contrails” is used in some circumstances as meaning the traditional ice trail produced by normal air traffic, and in other circumstances as meaning the typical chemtrail.

For this reason, this writer suggests interpreting the term “contrails” as “persistent contrails,” since it is the lack of dissipation that would necessarily produce any cloud creation that one usually associates with chemtrails as well as the concerns in relation to precipitation, pollution, and large-scale environmental and health risks.

Nevertheless, in regards to precipitation, the Belfort report summarizes conclusions reached by Professor D. Rosenfeld of the Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). The report states,

The conclusion of the study group [Professor Rosenfeld’s] is as follows: both [air pollution, particularly with aerosols, can both increase or decrease rainfall] can be true, depending on local environmental conditions. The amount of aerosols is the critical factor controlling how the energy is distributed in the atmosphere.[3] According to this survey they followed the energy flow through the atmosphere and the way it is influenced by aerosols and other ‘airborne’ particles. On this planet there is indeed an interaction of energy between the different cells within the troposphere in order to obtain a life sustaining temperature (15⁰ C in the International Standard Atmosphere at sea level).

Aerosols act twofold: on one hand they act like a sunscreen reducing the amount of energy reaching the ground. Accordingly less water evaporates and the air mass at ground level stays cooler and drier, with a reduced tendency to rise and form clouds.

Aerosols act as a sunscreen with a subsequent reduction of energy reaching the ground. Some sources refer to this phenomenon as ‘global dimming.’[4]

Yet, according to the Belfort report, there are other variables regarding the connection between aerosols and man-made/incidental precipitation. Namely, the amount of particulate matter such as aerosols that act as nuclei for condensation. As the Belfort report states,

. . . if there is a surplus of these condensation nuclei as a result of natural activity (e.g. Vulcan eruption) or men’s intervention (e.g. industrial pollution, contrails) the droplets never reach the critical mass needed to fall to earth as precipitation because there is just not enough water to share between all the aerosol particles. Furthermore with a rising number of droplets their overall surface increases, which on turn increases the amount of sunlight reflected back to space with subsequent cooling and drying of the Earth.

Going further, the Belfort report cites a separate study by a Professor Rosenberg where it summarizes his findings by writing:

In a nutshell the study of Prof. Rosenberg shows the following: with rising pollution, the amount of precipitation at first rises, then maxes out and finally falls off sharply at very high aerosol concentrations. Of even more interest is his conclusion: ‘The practical result is that in relatively clean air, adding aerosols up to the amount that releases the maximum of available energy increases precipitation. Beyond that point, increasing the aerosol load even further, lessens precipitation.’

Thus, aerosol spraying can affect the climate and environment by both increasing or decreasing precipitation and/or,  inversely, causing dehydration as well.

Professor Rosenberg further states that “The determination of this issue is one with significant consequences in an era of climate change and especially in areas suffering from manmade pollution and water shortages, including Israel.” The latter part of this statement should be very alarming to citizens of all nations, considering the fact that fresh drinking water is increasingly becoming a highly-valued asset in modern times.

Interestingly enough, the Belfort report also mentions three areas of “man-made Cirrus” cloud ramifications that have been understudied (as more of a political reticence than scientific) but that might very well play a part in the changing of the climate. It states,

The obvious side effects of the formation of contrails is the impact on astronomy. One has seldom a clear sky available for observation in areas with dense air traffic.

With changing cloud cover and subsequent temperature drop in the upper layer of the troposphere, hurricane activity may be increased as a result of the released instability. It is noteworthy that storms and major floods have more than tripled since 1981. No apparent relationship between aircraft engine emissions, aerosols, contrails and hurricane activity has been established yet on a scientifically basis.

It is accepted that knowledge on man made Cirrus cloud is relatively poor and that study of the impact of contrails on the Stratosphere is only in its initial phases. However one can assume that it might have an impact on higher layers and the ozone layer. Ozone depletion does not only occur as a result of industrial activity, but also due to multiple nuclear tests conducted in the 20^th century.

Considering the wide range of components necessary to conduct an aerosol spraying campaign, for whatever purposes, there are at least three requirements that must be met in order to conduct such a campaign successfully according to the Belfort report. They are,

1.)  Development of a reliable matrix of aerosol ingredients versus field conditions.

2.)  Engineering of an efficient, reliable but low cost system in order to seed the atmosphere.

3.)  Sponsorship through government agencies with a far-reaching commitment of captains of industry.

The Belfort Group thus rightly concludes that all of these elements were in place at the time of the publication of the report (2010) except for the reliability factor. However, the report goes on to summarize an extensive history of geo-engineering projects since the mid-20^th Century.

Thus, while the report itself does not suggest that the reliability factor exists, the fact that so many years of tests and attempts at geo-engineering does provide the average reader with plenty of reasons to believe that the reliability factor does, in fact exist. Since most projects known to the general public are far behind the true level of sophistication of government/military programs, one would likely be safe in the assumption that the chemtrail/geo-engineering programs are much more advanced than even the Belfort Group is aware of.

In the end, and after approximately seventy pages of documentation, the Belfort Group concludes the following:

1.)  Manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory, but currently the best option in geo-engineering considered by decision makers to counter global warming. The impact of production of artificial Cirrus clouds on temperature and precipitation patterns is supported by adequate hard scientific evidence.

2.)  The ambition of the United States is to control the weather by the year 2025, both for civil and military purposes (offensive and defensive strategies). This research paper contains a proven track record to support that statement.

3.)  The technology to organize spraying actions on a global scale is widely available. Both civil and military aviation is used for that purpose. The mix, containing oxides of metals and chemical components, can either be dispersed through special designed pods or directly incorporated into the jet fuel. This research paper is well documented in this respect.

4.)  Since the patents are owned by the main defense contractor for the U.S. armed forces (Raytheon) or the U.S. Department of Defense itself and given the history record it is obvious that current climate manipulation programs are organized and directed by the United States government.

5.)  The spraying actions in Europe are only possible with prior approval and intense co-ordination on top government level and industry on executive level. The general public is intentionally kept unaware of the existence of such projects.

6.)  Although the spraying actions may be considered legal these actions may have a potential detrimental effect on health. There is sufficient scientific evidence available in this research paper to support this thesis.

The report also presents four sets of recommendations in going forward regarding chemtrails or, as the report chooses to classify them, manmade contrails.

a.)  Artificial Cirrus clouds should be classified as a separate cloud genus by the WMO. Additional scientific research with the effects on nature and public health on this subject should be considered. Results – whatever the outcome – should be made public.

b.)  It is unacceptable that the AWACS aircraft fleet under NATO operates under a Luxembourg registrations without complying with civil aviation regulations. This is a flagrant violation of the law and this should be corrected in the near future. Given the very unfavorable engine emission ratios of this aircraft retrofitting of these engines should be considered as soon as practical.

c.)  When considering a legal case it is better to sue an industrial group, such as Raytheon, rather than a government agency. It is clear for us that the responsibility of Raytheon in this respect is far reaching with the creation of a monopoly in climate modeling or weather as a geo-engineering or a military instrument. If possible an international ban should be placed on such weapons.

d.)  Although the existence of weather modification projects have been illustrated in an adequate way in this research paper it is now the duty of a serious politician on any level to make enquiries to the government for public release of these spraying schemes through aviation. It is mandatory that such a statement should include the reason why such operations are conducted. It is not an option to hide behind the motive of national security.

Unfortunately, with the exception of an expanded awareness of chemtrails (or persistent man-made contrails) amongst the general public, the recommendations made by the Belfort Group have gone completely ignored by those in government, science, academia, and the mainstream media ever since its publication.

Regardless, the Belfort Group’s report stands as yet one more documented piece of the puzzle regarding the incessant spraying campaigns now taking place worldwide on a daily basis. While immediate action is not to be expected at this time, the Belfort Group’s report and all other available resources, must be used by those of us who are aware of chemtrail spraying campaigns to educate those of us who are not.Resources:

---

[1] Kinne, S., Cirrus clouds and climate, NASA Ames Research Center webpage. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[2] Keckhut, P., Hauchecorne, A., Bekki S., Collette, A., David C., and Jumelet C., Evidences of thin Cirrus clouds in the stratosphere at mid-latitudes, Service d’ Ae’ronomie/Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, CNRS, Verrie’res le Buisson, France, Received: 28 December 2004 – Accepted: 17 January 2005 – Published: 21 June 2005. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[3] Rosenfeld, D Does Air Pollution Increase Rainfall?, Hebrew University of Jeruzalem, September 5, 2009. *Citation provided by Belfort Study.

[4] Geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/jskiles/fliers/gif_folder/image10/image10a.gif

Read other articles by Brandon Turbeville here.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of three books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, and Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident. Turbeville has published over 175 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

Activist Post: Belgian Environmental Study Corroborates Existence and Effects of Weather Modification.