Climate and Weather

Geoengineering and Conspiracy Theories

Patrick Quanten

We are told that the climate is changing rapidly. Anything that is ‘out of the ordinary’ is now blamed on climate change. And by the way, what is ‘the ordinary’? Is it an average, and if so, an average of what? Is it what we expect it should be? Is ‘the ordinary’ everything that entails nature? Only by defining the ordinary can we establish what falls outside of that. What would you consider ‘out of the ordinary’?

• ­          Something that only happens once every fifty years? – But that would mean that it is perfectly normal when we take the fifty year cycle into account.
• ­        Something ‘we haven’t seen before’, meaning since records began? – In the UK, earliest observation records date back less than 250 years ago, and uninterrupted observation records are only 200 years old. Climate, on the other hand, exists already 4 billion years. Maybe in the last 200 years we haven’t seen ‘everything’ yet? Have we ‘seen’, and do we have observation records of, an ice age?
• ­         Something that deviates from the average we have calculated, maybe over a period of ten years, or twenty, or even fifty or one hundred years? – An average is, per definition, ‘a number expressing the central value in a set of data’. The real value can lie far below or far above the average and the average is no guideline for what is normal. In fact, every value obtained is a ‘normal’ value, because it is real. The only value that isn’t real, that isn’t a ‘normal’ value, is the average value. For instance, you can’t have 2.5 children!

Normal is what would be expected, the ordinary or the usual. Something that conforms to a general, a standard, or an average pattern. In other words, if we don’t expect it, we call it abnormal! This means that when a meteorological institute predicts the weather, they create an expectation, which, when the reality deviates from the expected, is then called ‘abnormal’. However, abnormal also refers to ‘not conforming to the norm’. So, when we refer to the weather being ‘abnormal’, we actually mean that it isn’t what we expected it to be. It is not conforming to what we consider to be the norm, which we have created at will. Weather as such cannot be abnormal as, to nature, which produces the weather, anything within its capabilities is considered normal. When I observe a contortionist I consider his movements to be abnormal for a human being, but to him these are normal, simply because he can do it. Whatever you can achieve – so whatever you can expect from yourself – is, to you, normal. Hence, nature considers all weather types as normal.

We can also ask the question whether it is the climate that is changing or the weather. What, in fact, is the climate? The climate is ‘the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place’. There is that word ‘usually’ again. The ‘ordinary’, the ‘normal’, the ‘usual’ weather in one specific place is considered to be the climate in that place. The climate is, as such, a concept, a map that tells us what to expect from the weather. And if the weather turns out to be different from our expectations we blame nature for not being normal. We never ask ourselves if, possibly, our expectations need to be adjusted given the new information, just gained through our own observation, that shows us our expectations were wrong. No, to the contrary, because we have deemed it to be ‘out of the ordinary’, to be abnormal, we feel compelled to help it to return to normal.

Changing the weather to meet our expectations is not something new. Weather modification programmes – that is what it is called – have been utilised since the 1940’s. Humans have long sought to purposefully alter such atmospheric phenomena as clouds, rain, snow, hail, lightning, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, and cyclones. The modern era of scientific weather modification began in 1946 with work by Vincent J. Schaefer and Irving Langmuir at the General Electric Research Laboratories in Schenectady, New York. – Note: it’s a research laboratory for electricity! - Schaefer discovered that when dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) pellets were dropped into a cloud composed of water droplets in a deep-freeze box, the droplets were rapidly replaced by ice crystals, which increased in size and then fell to the bottom of the box. Certain substances other than dry ice can be used to seed clouds. For example, when silver iodide and lead iodide are burned, they create a smoke of tiny particles. These particles produce ice crystals in super-cooled clouds below temperatures of about −5° C as the super-cooled cloud droplets evaporate. The water vapour is then free to deposit onto the silver iodide or lead iodide crystals. Although many other materials can cause ice crystals to form, the above-mentioned are the most widely used.

• ­               Silver iodide is one of the most common nucleating materials used in cloud seeding. A study published by the National Institute of Health (USA) in November 2016 showed that the ‘accepted’ level of silver iodide in the air induced a significant decrease in photosynthetic activity that is primarily associated with the respiration (80% inhibition) and, to a lesser extent, to the net photosynthesis (40% inhibition) in both strains of phytoplankton and a moderate decrease in soil bacteria viability. In other words, it dramatically diminished the capacity for oxygen production in bacteria.
• ­               Certain prominent statisticians have taken the position that because these projects have not purposefully incorporated ‘randomised’ or other control procedures to reduce the effects of bias by the operators, the data they have yielded cannot be used to test the efficacy of cloud seeding. Reports concluded that precipitation increased by some 10 to 15 percent as a result of silver iodide seeding. 
•        In April 2018, a report in ‘Nature’ stated: “Atmospheric iodine causes tropospheric ozone depletion and aerosol formation, both of which have significant climate impacts. The levels of iodine tripled from 1950 to 2010. (North Atlantic region)”
• ­        The Environment Agency, the leading public body protecting and improving the environment in England and Wales, stated the following. “The data available concerning the toxicity of hydrogen iodide is extremely limited. Inhalation of hydrogen iodide is reported to cause irritation of the upper respiratory tract, and causes irritation of the throat after short exposure. More severe exposures result in pulmonary oedema, and often in laryngeal oedema. However, no further details are available. An extensive literature search revealed no toxicological studies for humans or laboratory animals.” – In other words, the harmful effects of iodide inhalation are not being investigated!
• ­            In 2007, the World Health Organisation warned about the toxic effects of heavy metals in the air. “Lead exposures have developmental and neuro-behavioural effects on foetuses, infants and children, and elevate blood pressure in adults.” And in September 2024, they continued: “Lead can lead to a spectrum of injury across multiple body systems. In particular, lead can permanently affect children’s brain development, resulting in reduced intelligence quotient (IQ), behavioural changes including reduced attention span and increased antisocial behaviour, and reduced educational attainment. Lead exposure also causes anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs.”
• ­          The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a public health statement in December 1990, in which they said: “Exposure to dust containing relatively high levels of silver compounds such as silver nitrate or silver oxide may cause breathing problems, lung and throat irritation and stomach pain.”
• ­               It is further known that silver is toxic to all living cells and that it contributes to antibiotic resistance.

In spite of the poor results of cloud seeding (10 to 15%), lots of private companies rent out planes equipped for this purpose, and they are a huge financial success. One of those companies is Weather Modification Incorporation (USA). They present themselves as follows: “The proven success of Weather Modification, Inc., in atmospheric and weather operations is evident by our lengthy and impressive client listing that speaks for itself. Our reputation for successful cloud seeding and meteorological services leads our veteran pilots, experienced meteorologists and radar engineers around the world. Our valued clients include private and public insurance companies, water resource management organisations, as well as federal and state government research organisations.”

These projects are funded by international organisations such as the EU, the UN, the military. On August 1, 1996, the Defence Technical Information Center (USA) published a report, which had the following opening statement: “In 2025, US aerospace forces can own the weather by capitalising on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighter tools to shape the battlespace in ways never before possible. It provides opportunities to impact operations across the full spectrum of conflict and is pertinent to all possible futures.” They go on to say: “From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control (also known as negative space, and co-space), weather modification offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary.” So, plenty of interest and world domination is at stake here.

In December 1965, the Special Commission on Weather Modification, a department of the National Science Foundation (USA), published a report on Weather and Climate Modification. In it, they state: “The weather modification events of the late 40's and early 50's in the United States encouraged cloud seeding programmes in Australia, France and South Africa to increase precipitation and renewed the scientific interest in hail suppression that had been practiced in Alpine Europe since the mid 30's. The dozen nations experimenting with cloud seeding during the late 1940's more than doubled by 1951, from 12 up to 30 countries, representing every continent.” The Advisory Committee on Weather Control (USA) recommended: “The development of weather modification must rest on a foundation of fundamental knowledge that can be obtained only through scientific research into all the physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere. The Committee recommends the following:

• ­        That encouragement be given for the widest possible competent research in meteorology and related fields. Such research should be undertaken by Government agencies, universities, industries, and other organisations.
•      That the Government sponsors meteorological research more vigorously than at present. Adequate support is particularly needed to maintain continuity and reasonable stability for long-term projects.
• ­        That the administration of Government-sponsored research provide freedom and latitude for choosing methods and goals. Emphasis should be put on sponsoring talented men as well as their specific projects.
• ­        That an agency be designated to promote and support research in the needed fields, and to coordinate research projects. It should also constitute a central point for the assembly, evaluation, and dissemination of information. This agency should be the National Science Foundation.
• ­        That whenever a research project has the endorsement of the National Science Foundation and requires facilities to achieve its purpose, the agency having jurisdiction over such facilities should provide them.”

It must be obvious by now that weather modification has been a government endorsed and encouraged field of technology that has been in operation for nearly a century. Governments in all five continents are sponsoring private companies to influence the weather, in their opinion to improve the local weather conditions. And then there is the term ‘geoengineering’. Geoengineering is often reserved for those actions which attempt to curb the greatest impacts of climate change, while weather modification is usually taken to refer to those actions, such as cloud-seeding, to alter the weather in local areas across short time scales.

Within their own literature, we find statements like these. “Although weather modification schemes have caused significant impacts to communities such as inducing droughts or causing flooding, they usually don’t intend to alter the climate more broadly and, for that reason, they aren’t considered to be geoengineering. However, there is significant overlap between many geoengineering and weather modification methods, and weather modification technologies are also important precursors particularly to Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) schemes. This includes their development being highly linked to the military-industrial complex and risk of militarisation, such as the use of weather warfare by the US military in Vietnam. Furthermore, as weather modification projects scale up in geographical scope, so too do their impacts and likelihood of causing more wide-spread changes to weather systems.”

Outdoor weather modification research has taken place in 50 countries spanning 70 years, and the resulting body of published work shows that the effectiveness of weather modification techniques cannot be statistically proven. The most recent large-scale assessment of weather modification projects that aimed to enhance precipitation was carried out by the World Meteorological Organisation’s (WMO) World Weather Research Programme Expert Team on Weather Modification. Its Report on Global Precipitation Enhancement Activities cites that there are knowledge gaps between, on the one hand, the formation of clouds and precipitation and, on the other hand, major deficiencies in the models used for cloud seeding simulations. These are key reasons for the ineffectiveness of most weather modification attempts.

The Expert Team on Weather Modification from the World Weather Research Programme (WxMOD), all under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organisation, aims to promote scientific practices in weather modification research through its activities and through the organisation of scientific conferences or sessions on weather modification.

• WxMOD should promote research related to microphysics and aerosols that can be leveraged by and related to the activities of the WWRP (World Weather Research Programme) such as hydrology and precipitation, tropical cyclones, and urban prediction.
• WxMOD should provide necessary expertise in chemical, dynamical, and physical processes involving cloud and precipitation evolution impacting weather and climate.
• WxMOD should assist in the drafting of WMO documents on the status of weather modification and guidelines for providing advice to Members and to propose revisions to these documents where necessary.
• WxMOD should promote research and education about weather modification through organising scientific workshops, developing training materials, etc.

Lots of effort goes into promoting and controlling all activities surrounding weather modification and geoengineering. Another important player in this field, and also to give you some idea of the need for government control, seen all over the world, is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US. They boast: “Our agency holds key leadership roles in shaping international ocean, fisheries, climate, space and weather policies. NOAA’s many assets — including research programs, vessels, satellites, science centres, laboratories and a vast pool of distinguished scientists and experts — are essential, internationally recognized resources. We work closely with other nations to advance our ability to predict and respond to changes in climate and other environmental challenges that imperil earth’s natural resources, human life and economic vitality.”

This is how it works.

­        Considered a promising science, weather modification has the goals of preventing damaging weather and has been utilised since the 1940s & 1950s.  As part of Public Law 92-205 (1972), all non-Federal weather modification activities must be reported to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, via the NOAA Weather Program Office.

­        The Weather Modification Reporting Act of 1972, 15 U.S.C. § 330 et seq. requires that all persons who conduct weather modification activities within the United States or its territories report such activities to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at least 10 days prior to and after undertaking the activities. Failure to report can result in fines of up to $10,000.

­        Activities subject to reporting.

Weather modification activities are defined as “Any activity performed with the intention of producing artificial changes in the composition, behaviour, or dynamics of the atmosphere” (see 15 CFR § 908.1). The following, when conducted as weather modification activities, shall be reported (see 15 CFR § 908.3): 

• Seeding or dispersing of any substance into clouds or fog, to alter drop size distribution, produce ice crystals or coagulation of droplets, alter the development of hail or lightning, or influence in any way the natural development cycle of clouds or their environment;
• Using fires or heat sources to influence convective circulation or to evaporate fog;
• Modifying the solar radiation exchange of the earth or clouds, through the release of gases, dusts, liquids, or aerosols into the atmosphere;
• Modifying the characteristics of land or water surfaces by dusting or treating with powders, liquid sprays, dyes, or other materials;
• Releasing electrically charged or radioactive particles, or ions, into the atmosphere;
• Applying shock waves, sonic energy sources, or other explosive or acoustic sources to the atmosphere;
• Using aircraft propeller downwash, jet wash, or other sources of artificial wind generation;
• Using lasers or other sources of electromagnetic radiation; or
• Other activities undertaken with the intent to modify the weather or climate, including solar radiation management activities and experiments

All these methods are currently being used, otherwise there would be no point in demanding that they need to be reported!

­        The requirement to report does not apply to activities of a purely local nature that can reasonably be expected not to modify the weather outside of the area of operation. This exception is presently limited to the use of lightning deflection or static discharge devices in aircraft, boats, or buildings, and to the use of small heat sources, fans, fogging devices, aircraft downwash, or sprays to prevent the occurrence of frost in tracts or fields planted with crops susceptible to frost or freeze damage. Also, the requirement to report does not apply to religious activities or other ceremonies, rites and rituals intended to modify the weather.

­        All activities noted in the earlier paragraph must be reported at least 10 days before the commencement of such project or activity. However, after the Administrator has received initial notification of a planned activity, he may waive some of the subsequent reporting requirements. This decision to waive certain reporting requirements will be based on the general acceptability, from a technical or scientific viewpoint, of the apparatus and techniques to be used.

In other words, they may decide that you can proceed with your activity to alter the weather without any further need for them to know what you are doing!

International cooperation is a key factor to establish world control. And manipulating the weather, whether the claim is about local or global interference, is a very important tool to control life, and human life in particular, by bringing about major and catastrophic changes to living conditions and to economic conditions. On December 9, 2023, a conference on Climate Change through Weather Modification was held in Dubai. This event, hosted by the UAE National Centre of Meteorology (NCM), featured a diverse array of speakers, including experts and researchers from global entities like the WMO's Weather Modification Expert Team, the US Weather Modification Association, the European Geosciences Union (EGU), as well as NCM and its UAE Research Program for Rain Enhancement Science (UAEREP). As a case study, UAEREP provided financial funding and technical support to approximately 11 pioneering research projects worldwide. These projects have involved over 64 researchers from 35 research centres spanning 11 countries. Lots of money being spread across the globe to further the goal of climate change through weather modification. Whether you call it cloud seeding or geoengineering, it is a serious effort to change the weather and the climate, all being done to save the planet, even though profiteering by making effective use of private investments and extremely generous grants from public funds is a nice beneficial side-effect.

Geoengineering techniques include directly removing CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere. The first plants to do this are already in operation, capturing CO₂ in tiny quantities compared with countries' emissions. A high level of CO₂ in the atmosphere makes plants grow better. Ask the food producers who have received government grants to install CO₂-generators in their greenhouses. Plants that grow faster and produce more leaves produce more oxygen, which they release into the atmosphere. Plants are far more efficient in capturing CO₂ from the atmosphere than any devise we are capable of constructing. Furthermore, the intention of human authorities is ‘to store’ the captured CO₂ deep in the earth’s crust, while plants convert it into oxygen, released back into the atmosphere. I leave you to decide which is the better, the more sensible, the more healthy option.

More controversial is solar radiation modification (SRM), which would cut the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface by, for example, spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect more light back into space. The stratosphere extends from the tropopause at about 10 to 17km (about 6 to 11 miles) altitude to its upper boundary (the stratopause) at about 50km (30 miles), and it also contains the ozone layer. One idea involves pumping sun-blocking particles into the upper atmosphere. Stratospheric aerosol injection would involve flying aircrafts into the stratosphere, or between 10 miles and 30 miles skyward, and spraying a fine mist that would hang in the air, reflecting some of the sun’s radiation back into space.

• ­        Hence, aircrafts are flown into the stratosphere. Commercial flights are at the higher altitudes of the troposphere, as the flight height for commercial planes typically ranges from 31,000 to 38,000 feet, equivalent to approximately 5.9 to 7.2 miles (9.5km to 11.5km) above the ground.
• ­        However, research and military aeroplanes can get up to 150,000 feet (45.7km or 28.4 miles), with some exceptions reaching up to 300,000 feet (91.4km or 56.8 miles).
• ­         These planes release aerosols at a very high altitude into the atmosphere. This can be seen from the ground when planes, much higher than the clouds or any other aircraft you may spot, paint white straight lines into the sky that slowly spread to create a sheet, reflecting the sunlight. Conspiracy theorists call these chemtrails, while authorities everywhere insist they are simply contrails, exhaust fumes from aeroplanes, at a height where there is no regular air traffic.
• ­      The fact that only research and military aircraft are capable of reaching the necessary heights also explains why people have been unsuccessful in obtaining the flight plans for the planes they were observing. These flights simply ‘never existed’.
• ­        Interesting! In April 2024, Tennessee lawmakers have passed a bill banning the release of airborne chemicals that are known as "chemtrails" by conspiracy theories. The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.

In spite of governments everywhere denying that they are actively involved in climate modification, the following announcement hit the news in October 2022. “The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is coordinating a five-year research plan to study ways of modifying the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth in order to temporarily temper the effects of global warming. There are several kinds of sunlight-reflection technology being considered, including stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening and cirrus cloud thinning. Stratospheric aerosol injection involves spraying an aerosol like sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, and because it has the potential to affect the entire globe, often gets the most attention.”

Some of the techniques, such as spraying sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, are known to have harmful effects on the environment and human health. But scientists and climate leaders, who are concerned that humanity will overshoot its emissions targets, say research is important to figure out how best to balance these risks against a possibly catastrophic rise in the earth’s temperature.

The scientists and climate leaders – who are ‘the leaders’ of the climate? – referred to are the drivers of the narrative that the earth is rapidly warming up and that it is all to blame on high CO₂ emissions.

Harvard professor David Keith, who first worked on the topic in 1989, said it’s being taken much more seriously now. He points to formal statements of support for researching sunlight reflection from the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the creation of a new group he advises, called the Climate Overshoot Commission, an international group of scientists and lawmakers that’s evaluating climate interventions in preparation for a world that warms beyond what the Paris Climate Accord recommended. He says: “To be clear, nobody is saying sunlight-reflection modification is the solution to climate change. Reducing emissions remains the priority.”

“The idea of sunlight reflection first appeared prominently in a 1965 report to President Lyndon B. Johnson, entitled 'Restoring the Quality of Our Environment',” so David Keith told CNBC. The report floated the idea of spreading particles over the ocean at a cost of $100 per square mile. A one percent change in the reflectivity of the earth would cost $500 million per year. The report said, “This doesn’t seem excessive, considering the extraordinary economic and human importance of climate.” The estimated price tag has gone up since then. The current estimate is that it would cost $10 billion per year to run a programme that cools the earth by 1 degree Celsius, said Edward A. Parson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA’s law school. “But that figure is seen to be remarkably cheap compared to other climate change mitigation initiatives”, he added.

There’s also a precedent for releasing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Factories that burn fossil fuels, especially coal, do so as well. Coal has some sulphur that oxidises when burned, creating sulphur dioxide. That sulphur dioxide goes through other chemical reactions in the atmosphere and eventually falls to the earth as sulfuric acid in rain. But during the time that the sulphur pollution sits in the air, it does serve as a kind of insulation from the heat of the sun. Ironically, as the world reduces coal burning to curb the carbon dioxide emissions that so-called cause global warming, we’ll also be eliminating the sulphur dioxide emissions that mask some of that warming. And so we devise a plan with a huge price tag to the tax payer, to replace that sulphur. This is not a new concept, but a well-practised one. Remember the drive to remove all fat from your diet, so it could be replaced by capsules of fat (omegas)? We all use soaps to wash ourselves with, including our hair. Soaps remove the oil from the skin and the hairs, which then needs to be replaced by manufactured oil (skin moisturising creams and lotions and hair conditioner).

There are significant and well-known risks to some of these techniques — sulphur dioxide aerosol injection, in particular.

• ­        First, spraying sulphur into the atmosphere will ‘mess with the ozone chemistry in a way that might delay the recovery of the ozone layer,’ Edward Parson told CNBC.
• ­        Also, sulphates injected into the atmosphere eventually come down as acid rain, which affects soil, water reservoirs, and local ecosystems. Increase the sulphates and you destroy earth’s living conditions.
•  ­        Third, the sulphur in the atmosphere forms very fine particulates that can cause respiratory illness.

One example came to light in May 2015. “Four employees of Spain’s Meteorological Agency have confessed that Spain is being sprayed nationwide by aircraft that are spreading lead dioxide, silver iodide and diatomite through the atmosphere. The objective is to keep rain away and allow temperatures to rise, which creates a summer climate for tourism while benefiting corporations in the agricultural sector. In turn this is causing very severe instances of the extreme weather phenomenon known in Spanish as ‘gota fría’. The autonomous communities of Murcia and Valencia and the province of Almeria are the most affected, to the extent that not a drop of rain falls in over seven months, catastrophic ‘gota fría’ storms are generated, and respiratory diseases are caused among the population due to the inhalation of the lead dioxide and other toxic compounds. These aircraft are taking off from San Javier military airport in Murcia.”

And the plans to change the weather locally and globally don’t end with chemical interference. There is more in the pipeline.

• ­        Space-based techniques such as introducing a space mirror into orbit to reflect incoming sunlight, dispersing sunlight before it reaches earth with diffraction gratings or lenses, etc. These options are the least feasible because of their costs.
•        Ocean mirror. A fleet of sea vessels would spread lots of long-lasting microbubbles in the ocean, forming an artificial seafoam. This artificial seafoam would be whiter and, therefore, more reflective.
• ­        Cirrus cloud thinning. Cirrus is a type of high cloud made of ice crystals that reflect sunlight but also trap heat from infrared radiation. Thus, if we were able to thin them or reduce them, that could have a cooling effect on earth.

Now I leave you to ponder the question which actions have had, and still are having, the most impact on the weather and the climate: driving your car and heating your home with a coal fire, the breathing and farting of the life stock, the industry, or cloud seeding and geoengineering?

November 2024