The U.N. Weather Warfare Treaty......What is it

[senona]

Solar Radiation Management, Geoengineering and Chemtrails

What is SRM?

What would SMR involve?


Different SRM techniques have been proposed, but the proposals receiving the most attention from researchers would involve brightening marine clouds by spraying seawater into the lower atmosphere, or replicating the cooling effect of volcanoes by spraying reflective sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).

Stratospheric aerosol injection
When very large volcanoes erupt they blast millions of tonnes of reflective sulphate particles into the stratosphere. These particles circulate the planet on the powerful stratospheric winds, reflecting away a small amount of inbound sunlight and cooling the planet slightly for a year or two. Stratospheric aerosol ejection would seek to replicate this effect, with aeroplanes or balloons used to inject reflective aerosol particles into the upper atmosphere.

Marine cloud brightening
Large areas of ocean are covered in marine stratus clouds. Scientists have proposed that spraying tiny droplets of seawater into these clouds could make them lighter and more reflective. Whiter, brighter clouds reflect more sunlight back out into space, and would help cool the planet.



What about side-effects?

It is not yet known what all the side effects of SRM could be, or whether they would be very damaging. Some possible side effects are known, however. For instance, stratospheric aerosols might delay the regeneration of the ozone layer. There might also be some health effects from the additional aerosols in the atmosphere, although these are not currently expected to be large.

IPCC warns policymakers not to stop ‘solar radiation management’ despite it's long term side-effects.

The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:


“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.” [emphasis in original]


“Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis,” (referred to as “AR5”) supercedes the former report published in 2007. [1]  The IPCC’s first Assessment Report was published in 1990.

The discussion in the Summary for Policymakers and in the body of AR5 commends solar radiation management over carbon dioxide removal methods, which are limited in their efficacy on a global scale, yet admits that neither are ideal, and that both geoengineering techniques will have long-term consequences.



“While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the ongoing reality of global geoengineering,” comments Dane Wigington at Geoengineering Watch, “the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.” [2]

“Block the sun but continue to spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” is how Eli Kintisch characterizes SRM in his 2010 book, Hack the Planet. [3] In a world run by sanity, we would forego fossil fuels for free and abundant solar energy, coupled with Tesla’s development of free electricity, to meet the world’s energy needs, without destroying our nest by extracting and burning fossil fuels.

Solar radiation management has “three essential characteristics,” notes the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). “It is cheap, fast and imperfect,” [4] Citing geoengineering activist, David Keith, the IRGC explains that by injecting 13,000 tons of sulphate aerosol into the stratosphere on a daily basis, they would offset the radiative effects of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This compares to having to remove “225 million tons per day of CO2 from the atmosphere for 25 years.”


Were reason to prevail, we would capture solar energy, not block it; we would shun fossil fuels, not wage ecocidal wars to seize remaining supplies. In today’s world, however, policymakers have diverted billions of dollars into blocking the sun.  Efficient systems cost around $10 billion a year, “well within the budgets of most countries,” notes the IRGC.



Read more at source link.....

Source Link