Climate Cultists Conduct Secret Geoengineering Experiment in San Francisco Bay
The silencing of challenges to pandemic lockdowns, covid treatments, and vaccines has led high levels of mistrust in the pharmaceutical industry and with our public health agencies. This ill-considered, clandestine experiment may strike the same sort of blow against climate pseudoscience.
Last year, Biden asserted that there were no plans to block sunlight in an attempt to prevent the non-existent problem of global warming to occur.
The White House report released late Friday indicates that the Biden administration is open to studying the possibility that altering sunlight might quickly cool the planet. But it added a degree of skepticism by noting that Congress has ordered the review, and the administration said it does not signal any new policy decisions related to a process that is sometimes referred to — or derided as — geoengineering.
However, as was recently shown in a documentary about Dr. Deborah Birx and her covid cult, when the Administrative State takes over an issue…it doesn’t matter what the President says. Bureaucratic climate cultists and their scientists recently conducted a geoengineering experiment in the San Francisco area to create cloud cover in their senseless quest to slow down global warming.
Recently, US researchers from the University of Washington conducted the first outdoor test of a cloud-brightening technique that deflects sunlight in an attempt to cool the planet. It was conducted on deck of a decommissioned aircraft carrier (USS Hornet) in Alameda, on the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay.
Clouds reflect sunlight into space. The team intentionally amplified the reflection, effectively bouncing more sunlight away from our planet.
So, how does marine cloud brightening work? To enhance their brightness or reflectivity power, they injected sea salt particles (aerosols) into low-lying clouds over the ocean.
This, in turn, reduces the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, leading to a cooling effect.
This process of bouncing solar energy back into space is sometimes known as solar radiation modification or solar geoengineering.
The team used a specialized sprayer on the deck of the aircraft carrier Hornet to release microscopic sea salt particles into the air. In large-scale versions, ships will be equipped with massive spray machines to inject particles into the air.
One of the most significant issues with this experiment that I note is that it focuses on sunlight. I agree — the Sun is the most important player in Earth’s temperature. In fact, many scientists have been striving to get the message out to the public in an attempt to push-back on the claims fossil fuels are the reason for the rise in temperatures.
Ph.D Astrophysicist Willie Soon says all the changes in the temperature on earth can be explained 100% by the sun. pic.twitter.com/uOsAjmIMsi
— Tim (@timfinally) March 21, 2024
So, perhaps now we call agree to stop targeting a life-essential trace gas?
Furthermore, a warmer Earth is not a problem. Humans thrived in the Medieval and Roman warm periods…as did many other species.
Some at BerkeleyEarth think global warming is caused by temperatures, while those who still use the scientific process know the sun controls our climate. https://t.co/kO7Q4RU61S pic.twitter.com/lVnStskVYz
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) April 7, 2024
The next aspect of the report I would like to note is that it was essentially kept secret, because other controversial geoengineering tests were scrapped once the public found out about them.
The fact that very few people knew about it beforehand reflects how touchy geoengineering projects still are despite the growing interest in them as a potential way to slow global warming, reports Corbin Hiar for POLITICO’s E&E News.
The Coastal Atmospheric Aerosol Research and Engagement, or CAARE, project, led by researchers at the University of Washington, kept a tight lid on the project details. That was out of concern “that critics would try to stop them,” reported The New York Times, which, along with the San Francisco Chronicle, was granted exclusive access to cover the initial firing of the spray cannons.
I am betting that the residents in the San Francisco Bay area are fairly upset “experts” were allowed to conduct a secret experiment of this magnitude in the vicinity. A few green-energy firms found out the hard way what can happen when climate cultists ignore the reasonable concerns of local citizens.
In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I will concede that cloud seeding is a known technique for weather modification technique that improves a cloud’s ability to produce rain or snow by introducing tiny ice nuclei (salt particles) into certain types of subfreezing clouds.
So, the approach has been used before. But there are a potential slew of unintended consequences that should have been robustly discussed in public before the test proceeded: Enhanced salt levels in rainwater, diversion of rainfall so that other areas become dryer, and reduction in plant-levels due to decreased sunlight…to name a few.
There is a reason people don’t want massive geoengineering projects done anywhere on this planet. Most of us would rather try them on Mars to terraform that planet.
The silencing of challenges to pandemic lockdowns, covid treatments, and vaccines has led high levels of mistrust in the pharmaceutical industry and with our public health agencies. This ill-considered, clandestine experiment may strike the same sort of blow against climate pseudoscience.
Sounds a lot like their approach to #COVID.
Can’t let anything “get in the way of the science.” Where in history have we heard that before? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/RstJjHEoJW
— Emergent Perspective (@_emergent_) April 6, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So, they found a solution to the Fermi Paradox- experiment on your planet’s atmosphere.
How can any of this fly under NEPA? Anyone know any smart lawyers who can file suit?
Oh dear, what have these people become?
Leave the bloody planet alone.
Why do they do these stupid things?
Thank God I am heading towards the back end of my life.
If I were younger I would be a “domestic terrorist” for publicly fighting against this sort of crap.
“reliably brighten low marine clouds”
San Francisco fog. The reason Mark Twain froze his chestnuts off in July. The nimrods are chilling cold fog.
“In the summer months, the inland areas (105f) of California heat up faster than the coastal areas (50f). The resulting pressure difference pulls the marine layer (and therefore the fog) inland, typically in the late afternoon and evening. This is why fog is most common in San Francisco during the summer.”
The fog dissipates a few miles east of Livermore and Vallejo, but the wind doesn’t. The Altamont Pass wind farm.
Vallejo-Mare Island. That’s near to where the decommissioned Hornet is mothballed.
“The reason Mark Twain froze his chestnuts off in July. The nimrods are chilling cold fog.”
From Mark Twain’s War Prayer:
“God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, and the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon your neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain on your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse on some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.”
“But there are a potential slew of unintended consequences that should have been robustly discussed in public before the test proceeded: Enhanced salt levels in rainwater, diversion of rainfall so that other areas become dryer, and reduction in plant-levels due to decreased sunlight…to name a few.”
Examined in some detail in an obscure science-fiction novel by Ben Bova, The Weathermakers.
In 1967.
After reading this article, two questions immediately came to mind: where did the funding come from and how did the experiment receive approval? NASA for example has a rigorous approval process if substances are to be released into the environment.
Sure enough, if one searches the UW web site, we comes across the Marine Cloud Brightening program. A couple more clicks reveals that funding comes from an NGO called Silver Lining which lists several organizations that contributed funding such as private foundations, Amazon web services, Quadrature Climate Foundation. All are listed without links.
UW circumvented the approval process by using “private” funding. It would be VERY interesting to see if any of these organizations receive direct federal funding for their “services.” It seems likely that this experiment would violate some statute in California, which is the state where nothing remains unregulated.
Did UW get a permit from the EPA? File an environment impact statement?
Somehow I doubt it.
USS Hornet Museum
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Historic Landmark
California Historic Landmark
USS Hornet docked in Alameda
Added to NRHP 4 December 1991
Designated NHL 4 December 1991
Hornet was decommissioned 26 June 1970 and mothballed at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility. She was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 25 July 1989.
In 1991, she was designated a National Historic Landmark.
The carrier was donated to the Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation on 26 May 1998. On 17 October 1998, she was opened to the public as USS Hornet Museum in Alameda, California.
She was designated a California State Historic Landmark in 1999 and is listed on the National Register of Historic places,
And since money is fungible, their saying they used “private” funds is likely misleading. Just a few journal entries in the grants accounts and voila, they can assign specific dollars to specific projects. And just like federal funds were laundered thru EcoHealth to pay for gain of function “research” in Wuhan. Our government is using our own tax dollars to pay for our demise.
Nothing could possibly go wrogn….
Nothing like citing a twitter account which reference a graph about solar variability over thousands of years which are included in all climate models to make a claim about year on year record breaking temperature trends.
Secondly the second graph demonstrates the precise opposite, that solar variability doesn’t correlate with the temperature increases we are seeing,
Literally the dumbest article
Literally, the dumbest comment.
Before you start trolling and pushing your pseudoscience, you may want to do a little research before you embarrass yourself. John Shewchuck is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and well credentialed to offer an opinion and present a graphic…that charts the solar activity cycle aligning with global temperatures (the exact point I was making).
One of the troubles for credentialed scientists attempting to present information to the public that challenge the narrative is that they are throttled by climate cult minions (like yourself) who are make the algorithms for social media cites or control what gets published in journals and newspapers.
X is one of the few places now where solar cycle information and the data supporting the assertions the Sun is the primary determiner of the Earth’s temperature. So, taking a swipe at me because I use the information I have available on one of the few sites brave enough to allow it to be published is laughable.
“John Shewchuck is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and well credentialed to offer an opinion and present a graphic…that charts the solar activity cycle aligning with global temperatures (the exact point I was making).”
Hardly ” The graphic does not reflect actual temperatures” Maybe read the tweet before relying on a graphic that has no x or y axis, no measurements, and is clearly intended as an illustration and goes in the face of more scientific representations of solar activity.
“One of the troubles for credentialed scientists attempting to present information to the public”
“X is one of the few places now where solar cycle information and the data supporting the assertions the Sun is the primary determiner of the Earth’s temperature.”
Correct because when you evaluate climate denier claims with the scientific standard in mind it doesn’t pass peer review. Maybe have some intellectual honestly when you look at the scientific claims you assert.
One of the problems is that people like you have absolutely no idea how to form an argument and come to a reasoned conclusion. Instead of interpreting data and coming to a conclusion you have an opinion and hunt for any old crap to back it up no matter how silly. Take for example you citing a tweet with the caveat “The graphic does not reflect actual temperatures” how silly is that.
“Climate denier”….
Arguments using propaganda buzzwords are hardly reasoned arguments.
Try again.
I note you fail to actually engage woth any point being made. In other words you’ve proven what meant by the term climate denier a person unable to actually engage with the evidence who instead says spurious long debunked things.
I don’t have to eat a shit sandwich to know that it’s literal crap. Likewise, when you straight out of the gate start tossing around propaganda, I know you’re not serious, and not worthwhile engaging. Mark Twain’s adage about mud wrestling a pig comes to mind. Now you’re perpetuating the rhetoric by throwing around ad hominems.
You really don’t contribute anything to the discussion – not just in this instance, but in every engagement. I honestly suspect you’re a bot.
@nordic Prince
Once again not seeing an actual argument or defence here. It’s almost like you can’t actually defend yourself.
You seem to like pretending that I haven’t made a point, if you don’t understand the claims being made or want evidence just ask instead of acting defensive and resorting to nonsensical statements.
“One of the problems is that people like you have absolutely no idea how to form an argument and come to a reasoned conclusion. Instead of interpreting data and coming to a conclusion you have an opinion and hunt for any old crap to back it up no matter how silly. Take for example you citing a tweet with the caveat “The graphic does not reflect actual temperatures” how silly is that.”
BartE: This is projection. Therefore, your comment is even dumber than the first comment, which I considered the dumbest.
Not seeing an argument here. Do better
PS. If you cannot connect the link between the phrases “Roman Warm Period” and “Medieval Warm Period” to global temperatures, maybe you should just stay out of serious discussions of climate to begin with.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/31/new-evidence-that-the-ancient-climate-was-warmer-than-todays/
Lol, and how does that fit with the temperature trends which have been evidenced. Noting that the temperature trends in your silly graph are over hundreds of years and the current trend is over a few decades. Again do better
Leslie, you’re dealing with a religious fanatic. And the only way to deal with him doesn’t involve blog posts.
@SDN
Pure projection, I’ve pointed out that the facts don’t fit Leslie’s narrative. Pretending you have a point isn’t going to work
Climate denier? Is that anything like the “biology deniers” that are saying that men who have “sex reassignment surgery” and hormone replacement surgery are suddenly women? They are not, because the fundamental building blocks of biology—genetics—don’t change.
Same for climate alarmists who want to “remove all Carbon Dioxide from the planet immediately!!!” They don’t seem to realize that will kill off all life cycles on the planet.
Nobody’s a “climate denier”, we’re just doubting the magnitude of effect and the unbelievable arrogance and hubris of those who blame humans for all of it.
Strawmen and whataboutism isn’t much of a response is it
“Instead of interpreting data and coming to a conclusion you have an opinion and hunt for any old crap to back it up no matter how silly.”
Yet that’s exactly what the climate change grifters have been doing for decades. You start out with the conclusion that human behavior is driving a detrimental increase in the planet’s temperature and then you try to find “evidence” to back up your assertions while discarding any evidence that is contrary (and viciously attacking anyone who questions your methods). Anyone who questions your methods and conclusions is labeled a heretic. This isn’t science, it’s a new religion and you’re waging a crusade against anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
Pure projection. The problem you have is that your sides attempts at science are rubbish and don’t make the grade. Then you go around pretending you have a point. When you can actually pass peer review then maybe you’ll have some basis of a point. Until then your just pretending
“One of the problems is that people like you have absolutely no idea how to form an argument and come to a reasoned conclusion. Instead of interpreting data and coming to a conclusion you have an opinion and hunt for any old crap to back it up no matter how silly.”
Any one of us could have easily written this same thing about you.
Leslie is right. You’re probably the dumbest poster here.
Your comment is proving my point. Having a tantrum isn’t much of a response
Oh BTW here is a good article showing why its such a silly claim
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
The solar output doesn’t correspond at all with the temperature curve.
Actually solar variability is NOT included in climate models.
As can be seen in the linked article (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43583-7), there is an ongoing debate about the need to model solar variability in order to accurately simulate historical climate variations.
This article doesn’t say that, it’s talking about how to account for solar forcings. We know that climate models can detect solar variability becuase they are sensitive enough to differentiate between day and night.
A given location experiences day and night due to the earth’s rotation, not due to a change in solar radiation, which remains constant 24/7.
The author in the paper linked above recommends changing the solar radiation in the 11-year solar cycle to get the forcing right.
And day and night affects the temperature duh
Your later statement proves my point. Key word changing as opposed to including
Source?
Source with respect to what
Where is James Bond when you need him, to stop these megalomaniacal villains?
The next Bond film should feature a Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates or George Soros-type villain — a deep-pocketed, influential and obnoxious Leftist magnate or bureaucrat, intent on imposing his utterly insane and arrogant environmental “solution” upon the entire world, the deleterious consequences be damned.
But it won’t.
Because the current Bond is a snowflake who is skeered of guns.
The narcissistic, arrogant masterminds have no idea what they’re tampering with and what all the negative ramifications might be. They tacitly admit this by working out ways to avoid oversight and work in secret. Clearly their attitude is that no “rubes” should get in the way of masterminds with notions like public accountability. As Thomas Sowell noted there’s a limit to the damage a truly stupid can do, so if you want massive catastrophe you need to get people who believe they are really, really smart.
Funny, I was going to use those same adjectives to describe our new poster boy, the Marketing Director for the Playing God Through Science, Party BartE.
Good article, Leslie.
Cloud seeding has been used in agriculture for nearly a century.
If spraying water is going to wreck the world climate, we are doomed.
So noted in my article. If the test weren’t being carried out clandestinely, with a chance for the public to chime in and have their concerns allayed, then this would be a different story.
“I don’t know why she swallowed the fly.”
What’s the big deal? Even if global warming is real, just crank up the AC.
That’s exactly what they were experimenting with.
Crimes against humanity
“But there are a potential slew of unintended consequences…”
Cthulhu H Dying Gods for everyone, in the dark…
“Unintended consequences” isn’t an excuse, or free pass; it’s literally an admission you didn’t know what was going to happen, were to dumb to realize you didn’t know, and went ahead anyway. Are you disqualified for stupidity, recklessness, or hubris? Embrace the healing power of “and”, I say.
IYou had unintended consequences. You never get to do that kind of thing again without adult supervision.
This is why we don’t let McDonald Douglass financial engineers run air liner door engineering, for example.
Of course the intervention-prone need to paper over the abject failures. Literally every “Something, must be done!” they’ve had, had massive “unintended consequences.” if they didn’t get their accidents dismissed, they’d never get to do anything, ever again. Where’s the rake-off in that? This is how complex, adaptive systems work. And you work with them incrementally, adaptively, empirically, locally — exactly the opposite of the BigThink and “Change all the things” reactions that generate all the rake offs and trips to conferences.
Jeebus H pseudo-literal Weenies looking to stir the pot they’re in…
No, I am not taking a shot at our kind provocateur; I’m riffing on some misleading language that has become part of the conventional patois. I have to declare that because here on Teh Interwebz, intentional pseudo-misunderstanding is the debased coin sometimes.
No, “unintended consequences” does not connote that it’s not their fault; rather the other thing. Lets get that meaning what it actually means: you were too dumb to see what would happen.
There *was* back in the day one of those feature / keynote lectures colleges used to host, showing off their most interesting big brains that in the end touched on climate and unintended consequences. Of course, it was neither strident nor simplistic enough, so got memory holed along with the program. (The guy didn’t make himself even a public intellectual beyond the one book, so I’m not gonna slag him.
Net, a very credentialed, Dean-level physicist looked at “global warming” like a planet scale physics problem. Breaking down how to think from what we know to what we might was brilliant. This is how engineers and scientists think doing real work.
His conclusion working down to planet-scale, and climate-scale mechanisms was: :We don’t know enough about how this works.” Then “We’re doing an uncontrolled experiment on multiple vectors on the only biosphere we have to live in.”
Now, interestingly, this same guy had a popularizing science book maybe 20 years before, which did a hockey stick-type projection on something else … that in the event didn’t happen.
Wonder if all that salt will kill off the plankton in the oceans. Would not be surprised to see it have harmful effects on the ocean if they keep playing with that crap.