Geoengineering:  ‘Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025’

‘In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined.  In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.   “The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”  in 2025 we can “Own the Weather.”

A study produced in the Department of Defence by Col TJ House and team in response to a directive from the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force and presented in June 1996

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ia601605.us.archive.org/35/items/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier/WeatherAsAForceMultiplier.pdf  

I am persuaded, long since.  The evidence is writ large across our skies.

I am not trying to persuade anybody else.  Do your own research. 

To get you started, some references may help.  Here are a couple:

The Dimming, documentary from GeoengineeringWatch.org  (1h57m viewing) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf78rEAJvhY

Irrefutable Film Footage Of Climate Engineering Aerosol Spraying ( GeoengineeringWatch.org , 7 years ago, 2 mins ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK9nVR9H34g

Harvard University’s Geoengineering Program  https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/geoengineering

Global cooling??

The statement

“If CO2 is warming the atmosphere since 1900, can someone explain why all raw data (worldwide) show cooling?  It’s cooling in Australia.  And the US too!  If there is warming, why is it that the area of snow cover is stagnant?”

The source

Kevin Loughrey, Independent candidate for Ballina in the NSW State Election on 25 March 2023, in a pre-election advertisement in the Byron Shire Echo (of which Hans Lovejoy, see item above, is Editor).

My take on it

These contra-narrative data won’t be popular amongst the mainstream information peddlars, challenging as they do, one of the primary assumptions on which climate change alarmism and CO2 demonisation are based.

Come to think of it, I was just reading over the weekend about polar bears being on the increase too.

Yes, freedom of belief is one of the primary freedoms.    And when the data don’t all align, it comes back to what you believe, which generally is about whom you believe.

CO2: Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits.

The statement

Australian forests adsorb 940 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum compared to our domestic and industrial emissions of 417 million tonnesAdd to that the absorption of carbon dioxide in continental Australia to the carbon dioxide adsorption of 2,500,000 square kilometres of continental shelf waters and Australia sequesters some five times as much carbon dioxide as it emits. Australia does more than its share of the heavy lifting for global sequestration of carbon dioxide.

The source

Professor Emeritus Ian Plimer, Australia is already at Net Zero, in The Spectator, 24 May 2022

My take on it

This article is for those who are taken in by the concept of Net Zero, in order that they might look at another perspective. (I’d prefer not to give the Net Zero notion any oxygen.)

Net Zero relies on multiple assumptions including that the globe is getting dangerously hotter, and that this is caused to a significant extent through the generation of carbon dioxide by human activity. It’s a narrative that fits the globalist agenda, rather than the truth.

As to the first assumption, please see my next post.

And perhaps a few words on carbon sequestration. Sequestration means a withdrawal into seclusion. Carbon sequestration refers to the removal of carbon from general circulation. Biological carbon sequestration happens naturally through photosynthesis, the process whereby plants use solar energy to combine carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) with water to produce carbohydrate (especially glucose) and oxygen. That carbohydrate is a building block that enables the plant or tree to grow and reproduce. It is also an energy source for that growth, in which case the chemical equation of photosynthesis is reversed to that of respiration, some of the carbohydrate combining with oxygen to yield carbon dioxide and energy. Over time, plants and trees may be cropped, or burned off, or simply die, in which case carbon is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (or methane) once again. It’s just a matter of time.

ZERO Change in the Rate of Sea Level Rise — for All of Recorded History

The statement

“This is a post which writes itself in a single graph. We will throw other graphs in because we like controversy. Figure 1, from the NOAA, shows CO2 launching upward since 1960 on the left side, with graphs of tide gauge data from multiple stations on the right. The data on the right stays perfectly straight while the data on the left is springing upward, ostensibly causing global energy increases in the ocean in the form of heat.

Referring to the right side above, nobody claims global warming started prior to 1900, although they may have to soon because there is literally zero change in slope. The problem with all of this, however, is that it is the smoking gun proof that global warming is not a major effect. For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.     …..

In all cases, there is ZERO curvature in the measured data. This is proof that man has NOT impacted sea level in a measurable way. This is important because oceans, like coffee cups, cannot be deeper on one side for any length of time. Liquids self-level. All of humanities coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”

The source

Jeff Id, on https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2022/10/02/zero-change-in-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-for-all-of-recorded-history/

(See also https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-mean-sea-level-time-series-and-associated-uncertainty-based-on-tide-gauge-data_fig5_306149061 re some source data for the above article)

For some profile information on Jeff Id, see here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/

My take on it

‘For global warming to be real, we literally NEED the oceanic level to change (at least a little) in response to CO2.’

This article includes a plot of CO2 ‘launching up’ over time, since ~1955.

This article also contains data series of sea level in multiple locations.  These reflect a (very minor) slope, and the slope is constant (ie with no curvature).

The implication?

“All of humanities (sic) coal plants, all concrete manufacturing processes, all cars, all fossil fuels across the entire history of sea level measurement has had precisely zero impact on sea level.”