“Never trust to general impressions, my boy, but concentrate yourself upon details.”
Sherlock Holmes – A Case of Identity
In part 14 we identified two opposing forms of geoengineering both clandestine.
One, the “red pill” – warming climate modification, is the predominant form and has been around since at least 1970.
The other, the “blue pill” – cooling climate modification, occurs less frequently, but over heavily populated regions. This form seems to be mainly for the purpose of deceiving the masses into believing that global warming has slowed down or even stopped when that is certainly not the case, as we shall see.
Pause for Thought
From 1998 onwards, as global warming skeptics never tire of reiterating, the rise in global surface temperatures slowed. Certainly, over this period relatively low solar activity and high volcanic activity has resulted in less solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface. In part 14 we postulated that, from around the mid-90’s, the introduction of cooling climate modification interspersed with the warming modification has also appeared to have contributed significantly to the slowdown in the rise of global surface temperatures.
Does this mean the geoengineers decided to go back on their original intent to warm the planet?
Before we can answer that question, we should be aware that surface temperatures are only representative of 2% of all the facets that make up global climate change.
Energy accumulation within distinct components of Earth’s climate system from 1971 to 2010. From Chapter 3 of the 2013 IPCC report.
Over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans. As can be seen from the graph above, this has continued accelerating oblivious of any pause in surface temperatures.
Also of the utmost significance is the fact that the temperature datasets most often cited only cover 84% of the planet. They leave out most of the Arctic.
“This is exactly what has occurred in the oft-cited Hadley Center and Climatic Research Unit, or CRU, temperature dataset, which covers 84 percent of the planet but leaves out most of the Arctic. The same issue undercuts data by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). In contrast, the NASA GISS dataset has taken into account warming in the Arctic by filling in the gaps with nearby weather stations, however, even their accounts still underestimate the total warming compiled by Cowtan and his partner, Robert Way with the University of Ottawa.” Emphasis mine
The Arctic is warming eight times faster than the rest of the planet. When the true Arctic warming is factored into the equation, the global warming slowdown melts away:
“Satellites have only been monitoring the Arctic since 1979, meaning they are only able to fill in the gaps beginning with that year. However, what the scientists found was shocking: the results show that in the last 15 years warming rates have skyrocketed in the Arctic with the region currently heating up around eight times faster than the rest of the world. Moreover, when this warming spike in the region is added into the global total, the much-purported climate change slowdown vanishes.” Emphasis mine
“Lead author, Kevin Cowtan with York University, says that it’s quite easy to see how leaving out Arctic temperatures has made global temperatures datasets inaccurate.” Emphasis mine
Mocking Old Hiems’ Crown
“And on old Hiems’ thin and icy crown
An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds
Is, as in mockery, set”
A Midsummer Night’s Dream
It would seem extraordinary measures are being taken to ensure the public does not become fully aware of just how drastic the increase in Arctic temperatures has been and consequently the true state of global warming.
We previously established that two major means of melting the Arctic ice were proposed and, in all likelihood implemented, from around the mid-1970s.
- The alteration of albedo by deposition of black carbon (soot) onto the Arctic ice as recommended by Budyko and Borisov. Carried out by means of ground-based dispensers in the form of gas flaring as suggested by William Gray but also the deliberate setting (and lax regulation) of wildfires surrounding the Arctic circle
“…ground based dispensers of black carbon plumes.”
“Wildfires are almost always the result of human behaviour.”
“The effect of soot on snow is unambiguous, it causes a strong warming effect.”
“There is no way to account for the rapid retreat of ice globally based only on global warming,”
2 The modification of cloud cover suggested by Fletcher and others, publicly predicted by Lyndon Johnson and carried out by means of aircraft dispersing aerosols into the upper atmosphere. Coal fly ash being the most likely choice.
Arctic clouds have increased since 1980
In the polar latitudes 60° – 90° North and South, satellites are less reliable due to the reflections from snow and ice cover hampering cloud recognition so we must resort to the more traditional methods of human observation.
Increased cirrus cloud cover over Alaska since 1952 attributed in this paper to aviation, and linked to warming, observed in five stations in Alaska, gives us a conservative estimate of around +0.8% per decade. As aviation was not confined to Alaska, this suggests that similar increases occurred throughout the Arctic region.
The flight path between Alaska and Europe was restricted until the opening of Russian airspace in the 90’s but we can speculate that in the spirit of co-operation engendered by the “Real Cold War”, Russian aircraft, including their equivalent of reconnaissance planes, have operated alongside those of the West. In the Subarctic and Arctic regions, even commercial aircraft fly mostly in the lower stratosphere and we know that Polar Stratospheric Clouds have been observed encroaching beyond the Polar region even as far as the Midlands in the UK.
Eastman and Warren revealed an increase in Arctic cloudiness over the ocean and the land showing an increase in total cloud cover from 1971 to 2007. This has enhanced the warming of the Arctic.
“Overall, relationships between ice, temperature, and clouds indicate that cloud changes in recent decades may enhance the warming of the Arctic and may be acting to accelerate the decline of Arctic sea ice.” Emphasis mine
In a later study covering the period from 1971 – 2009 they updated the land-based cloud reports to reveal an increase of around 3% in higher clouds, 5% in mid-level clouds and 7.5% in lower clouds in the Arctic region. This gives a total of 15.5% increase in Arctic cloud cover over 39 years.
Others confirm their findings:
“Eastman and Warren (2010, hereafter EW10) has shown that cloud changes derived from surface observations (SURF) appear to be enhancing the warming seen in the Arctic. EW10 show an increasing trend in Arctic total cloud cover and a positive correlation between total cloud cover and surface air temperature in autumn, winter, and spring.” Emphasis mine
“Our companion paper EW10, based on surface-observed clouds, has found slight increases for all seasons in total cloud cover both over the Arctic Ocean and over the Arctic as a whole.” Emphasis mine
It is clear that there has been a linear increase in cloud cover which contrasts with the regular variation due to the Arctic Oscillation:
Time series of seasonally averaged cloud fraction over the arctic seas in spring (March, April, May). Provided by Axel J. Schweiger.
Spatial distribution of trends in cloud cover over twenty years. Provided by Axel J. Schweiger
All Arctic clouds are net-warming
Lower clouds, although net-cooling when integrated over the whole planet, are net-warming north of 60 degrees latitude. They trap more heat than the sunlight they reflect in this region. This applies throughout the year, except, briefly, during the summer.
“In winter clouds have a warming effect on the surface almost everywhere over the Arctic region north of 60°N, but in summer the cloud warming effect only holds for Greenland and the western part of the central Arctic region as a result of the high surface albedo.”
“The annual cycle of Arctic CF reveals cloud-induced surface warming through most of the year and a short period of surface cooling in the middle of summer, when cloud shading effects overwhelm cloud greenhouse effects. The sensitivity of CFLW to cloud fraction is about 0.65 W m−2 per percent cloudiness. The sensitivity of CFSW to cloud fraction is a function of insolation and ranges over 0–1.0 W m−2 per percent cloudiness for the sun angles observed at SHEBA.”
Taking the information above into account, we can estimate that Arctic cloudiness has an overall forcing per % of cover of 0.65 – 0.5 (mid-range) = around 0.15 W m−2.
A 15% cloud cover increase over 39 years would give us 2.25 W m−2 of warming in the Arctic region. This is about double the forcing due to CO2 for the same period.
Arctic aerosols and clouds
Scientists have determined that increased aerosol levels lead to a corresponding increase in clouds and also alter the nature of those clouds to enhance their warming properties by as much as 3.4W m−2 on average.
“Using data from the DOE ARM Climate Research Facility in Barrow, Alaska, Vogelmann and Lubin determined that enhanced aerosol amounts can make clouds emit more thermal energy to the surface. In an aerosol-cloud process, increased aerosol concentrations cause the cloud droplets to become smaller and, within clouds of fixed water amounts, more abundant. Vogelmann and Lubin discovered that this process makes many clouds more opaque and emit more thermal energy to the surface, by an average of 3.4 watts per square meter, which is comparable to that by increased greenhouse gases.” Emphasis mine.
“Our study illustrates how human activity can influence Arctic climate in more than one way, by changing the way clouds warm the climate, in addition to the carbon dioxide increases. It is also another example of human industrial activity’s surprising impact on remote polar regions.” Emphasis mine
Nasa scientists in this study put the blame squarely on aerosols for much of the Arctic warming since 1976:
“Though greenhouse gases are invariably at the center of discussions about global climate change, new NASA research suggests that much of the atmospheric warming observed in the Arctic since 1976 may be due to changes in tiny airborne particles called aerosols.” Emphasis mine
Three classes of Arctic aerosols were the focus – Sulphates, Black Carbon and Fly Ash.
“Researchers used an electron microscope to capture these images of black carbon attached to sulfate particles. The spherical structures in image A are sulfates; the arrows point to smaller chains of black carbon. Black carbon is shown in detail in image B. Image C shows fly ash, a product of coal-combustion, that’s often found in association with black carbon. While black carbon absorbs radiation and contributes to warming, sulfates reflect it and tend to cool Earth. Credit: Peter Buseck, Arizona State University”
However, Eastman and Warren observed that sulphate aerosols had decreased since the mid-1990’s at surface stations in the Arctic and so eliminated sulphates as potential culprits in the increase in Arctic cloudiness:
“Correlations with temperature and sea ice extent are strongest during spring and autumn when the cloud longwave effect dominates. It is shown that low clouds have a strong positive relationship with temperature during these seasons. However, the trend of Arctic aerosols has gone in the opposite direction, as Quinn et al. (2007) have observed with the decreasing sulfate aerosols since the mid-1990s at surface stations in the Arctic. Emphasis mine
Likewise, this study reveals that black carbon in the atmosphere measured at key stations, north of 70° shows reduced levels of around 50% since 1990.
While there is evidence of increases in black carbon south of 70° by means of gas flaring and wildfires, the greatest cloud increase has been north of that latitude.
This leaves us with the final suspect, fly ash, recognised as an extremely efficient ice-nuclei.
In parts 9 and 10 we established that fly ash was the most likely candidate for the aerosol of choice for a clandestine climate modification campaign, including that covering the Arctic region. It is laid down in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere by commercial and military aircraft and gives rise to polar stratospheric cloud and cirrus cloud formations. As the fly ash eventually descends to the lower levels it also acts as cloud condensation nuclei to form lower clouds which, in the Arctic, also have a net-warming effect.
In part 14 we were led to conclude that from the mid-90’s, a form of cooling modification was introduced over strategic areas in the mid-latitudes. We have now established that global warming has not slowed down but only appears to have done so whilst being shifted further north.
We can speculate that a similar shift occurred in the climate modification programs.
If we return again to the modern proposals for cirrus cloud geoengineering to reduce cirrus cloud cover at mid to high latitudes and cool the planet, we can see that two forms of seeding were suggested, involving deployment of aerosols at cruise altitudes:
Seeding 1 covering 45% of the globe: Seeding 18 ice nuclei (IN) per litre at latitudes from 10° to 90° in the winter solstice hemisphere, and 55° to 90° in the summer solstice hemisphere.
Seeding 2 covering 15% of the globe: Seeding 18 ice nuclei (IN) per litre at latitudes from 40° to 90° in the winter solstice hemisphere, and 85° to 90° in the summer solstice hemisphere.
In both cases, there is a gradual transition from the summer seeding latitudes to the winter seeding latitudes in each hemisphere to maximise the effect from the solar zenith angles. The importance of the solar zenith angle is evident from the fact that both seeding patterns have the same forcing effect despite the great difference in coverage of 45% as opposed to 15%.
The further poleward you go, the greater the long wave forcing and the lesser the shortwave forcing.
As can be seen below, larger areas than those exposed to active seeding are affected due to tropospheric meridional mixing although there is a decay towards the lower latitudes.
Now, imagine that from 1970 to around 1995 something akin to seeding 1 was deployed but building up an over-seeding regime of aerosols, most likely fly ash.
Then from 1995 onwards, a form resembling seeding 2 was deployed, emphasizing fly ash dispersal further north, enhancing all forms of clouds from the stratosphere down to the lower troposphere. At the same time as this shift occurred, cooling climate modification was introduced in a strategic fashion over highly-populated areas and receiving maximum media attention to give people the impression that global warming was not occurring so drastically and to screen them from the operations in the Arctic.
The occurrence of such a shift finds support in a 2016 NASA analysis of 30 years of satellite data revealing the trend of high altitude clouds in the mid-latitudes shifting poleward. NASA attribute this shift to global warming but it is my contention that it is the other way around. By concentrating their warming operations further north, the geoengineers could move them further from scrutiny whilst maintaining the same degree of efficiency. This would also give the impression of cirrus clouds shifting poleward.
Convective Cloud Feedback
As the Arctic ice melts, increased heat and moisture from the surface rises to feed cloud cover which in turn adds to the heat trapped and leading to more cloud cover and so on. CO2 warming has been suggested as an initiator of this process.
However, while it is evident that Arctic ice has indeed undergone a decline, the most drastic decrease seems to have begun from around 1996 onward.
PIOMAS model Arctic sea ice volume for autumn 1980–2014 (solid line) and spring 1981–2014 (dashed line). CryoSat-2 volume estimates (red stars) are plotted for 2010–2014.
Source: Nature Geoscience; Tilling et al. (2015).
Indeed, as there was around a 7% increase in Arctic cloud cover from 1980 to 1996, the period before the drastic ice decline and a continued linear increase after 1996 we can establish that Arctic cloud increase preceded the Arctic ice melt feedback on which it is supposed to have depended. This also lends support to the hypothesis that cloud seeding operations were more focused in the Arctic after the mid-1990’s.
- From 1998 onward, the rise in global surface temperatures slowed.
- However, surface temperatures make up only 2% of global climate change.
- Over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans.
- The surface temperature datasets most often cited, only cover 84% of the planet, leaving out most of the Arctic.
- The Arctic is warming eight times faster than the rest of the planet. When the true Arctic warming is factored into the equation, the global warming slowdown melts away.
- A 2016 NASA analysis of 30 years of satellite data reveals a trend of high altitude clouds in the mid-latitudes shifting poleward.
- It can be speculated that there occurred a corresponding poleward shift in warming modification operations, especially after 1995.
- This coincided with cooling climate modification being introduced in a strategic fashion over highly-populated areas and receiving maximum media attention to give people the impression that global warming was not occurring so drastically and to screen them from the operations in the Arctic.
- The further pole-ward low clouds occur, the greater the shift towards net-warming until, over the Arctic, lower clouds have a warming effect overall.
- Arctic low cloud in the region 60° – 90° N, having a warming influence, has increased, contributing significantly to the overall warming.
- The Antarctic has not seen such an increase in cloud cover nor temperature.
- Arctic cloud cover has played a significant role in the disproportionate global warming biased towards the north pole.
- Arctic ice albedo loss, a feedback loop feeding on the others, and said to be the most urgent, is the extra heating caused by the melting of the Arctic snow and sea ice.
- Although it has been proposed that convective cloud feedback over the Arctic has played a role in accelerating Arctic sea ice loss, current levels of CO2 (400.16 ppm) are insufficient to have caused large reductions in winter sea ice through this mechanism.
- The Arctic cloud increase preceded the Arctic ice melt albedo feedback on which it is supposed to have depended.
- Therefore, Arctic cloud is also a forcing in addition to a feedback.
- Whilst anthropogenic aerosols seem to have played a major role in this form of forcing, we can rule out black carbon and sulphate as potential candidates.
- A potential candidate, coal fly ash, is one of the main suspects for the aerosol implicated in the role of altering the make-up of clouds.
- It is laid down in the stratosphere and upper atmosphere by commercial and military aircraft and gives rise to polar stratospheric cloud and cirrus cloud formations.
- As the fly ash eventually descends to the lower levels it also acts as cloud condensation nuclei to form lower clouds which, in the Arctic, also have a net-warming effect.
- Along with black carbon, this aerosol has played a major role in the disproportionate warming focused in the North from 1980 to the present.
We shall next turn our attention in part 16 to what is said to be the final and most terrible feedback mechanism resulting from global warming and the extraordinary proposals of a group of scientists to counteract it using a technology that has attained a level of infamy unsurpassed among anti-geoengineering activists.