Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

dialogue and research on chemical trails

Unread postby socrates » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:00 am

It's stories like this which prove that "chemtrails" is not a far-fetched idea. The volume of chemtrailing, along with these types of documents, shows that chemtrails have to do with climate change. Common sense tells me they are used to block out uv-b rays and perhaps to tinker with overall weather patterns. They are probably also used for remote sensing. I also think stuff is certainly also going on in the stratosphere, where even astronomers no longer can see too much of what is happening.

Chemtrails have been proven real, and the logical purposes for such have been deduced. People can keep burying their heads in the sand as regards to the frankensteinian atmospheric shenanigans. Or they can go to rat infested places like Chemtrail Central and read about inter-galactical adventures or the most up-to-date depopulation and mind control tinfoiltainment. Then they can more easily dismiss chemtrails as an internet hoax. This is basically how chemtrails on the internet has been gamed.


Geoengineering Could Slow Down Global Water Cycle
ScienceDaily (May 28, 2008)

A schematic representation of various geoengineering and carbon storage proposals.
(Credit: Diagram by Kathleen Smith/LLNL)

As fossil fuel emissions continue to climb, reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth would definitely have a cooling effect on surface temperatures.

However, a new study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, led by atmospheric scientist Govindasamy Bala, shows that this intentional manipulation of solar radiation also could lead to a less intense global water cycle. Decreasing surface temperatures through "geoengineering" also could mean less rainfall.

The reduction in sunlight can be accomplished by geoengineering schemes. There are two classes: the so-called "sunshade" geoengineering scheme, which would mitigate climate change by intentionally manipulating the solar radiation on the earth's surface; the other category removes atmospheric CO2 and sequesters it into the terrestrial vegetation, oceans or deep geologic formations.

In the new climate modeling study, which appears in the May 27-30 early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Bala and his colleagues Karl Taylor and Philip Duffy demonstrate that the sunshade geoengineering scheme could slow down the global water cycle.

The sunshade schemes include placing reflectors in space, injecting sulfate or other reflective particles into the stratosphere, or enhancing the reflectivity of clouds by injecting cloud condensation nuclei in the troposphere. When CO2 is doubled as predicted in the future, a 2 percent reduction in sunlight is sufficient to counter the surface warming.

This new research investigated the sensitivity of the global mean precipitation to greenhouse and solar forcings separately to help understand the global water cycle in a geoengineered world.....
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening... from AGU

Unread postby Isard » Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:26 am


Don't know whether i am posting this in the right section of the forum.
I found it in AGU (American Geophysical Union) website. It is very recent and seems interesting.


GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L12708, doi:10.1029/2008GL034228, 2008

Aerosol and cloud effects on solar brightening and the recent rapid warming

Christian Ruckstuhl
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Rolf Philipona
Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland

Klaus Behrens
Meteorologisches Observatorium Lindenberg, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Lindenberg, Germany

Martine Collaud Coen
Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland

Bruno Dürr
Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland

Alain Heimo
Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland

Christian Mätzler
Institute of Applied Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Stephan Nyeki
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Atsumu Ohmura
Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Laurent Vuilleumier
Aerological Station, Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Payerne, Switzerland

Michael Weller
Meteorologisches Observatorium Lindenberg, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Lindenberg, Germany

Christoph Wehrli
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Antoine Zelenka
Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland


The rapid temperature increase of 1°C over mainland Europe since 1980 is considerably larger than the temperature rise expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. Here we present aerosol optical depth measurements from six specific locations and surface irradiance measurements from a large number of radiation sites in Northern Germany and Switzerland. The measurements show a decline in aerosol concentration of up to 60%, which have led to a statistically significant increase of solar irradiance under cloud-free skies since the 1980s. The measurements confirm solar brightening and show that the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ∼+1 W m−2 dec−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

Received 9 April 2008; accepted 22 May 2008; published 24 June 2008.


The following is interesting as well.


Atmospheric aerosol research in the U.S.: 1991--1994
Sonia M. Kreidenweis

Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins

User avatar
truth warrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Uruguay

Unread postby socrates » Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:03 pm

Thanks for the links, Isard, perfect!

It's like when the planes were grounded after 9/11 and the temperature went up. There is, ironically, what is known as "good pollution." It's not that it's good, but it somewhat keeps the temperatures down a bit. This is pure science.

I have already predicted the next round of disinfo used to explain the chemtrails. Chinese pollution, African dust, etc., along with increased moisture from global warming turns into the et in Arcadia Ego super ice saturation clouds from the increased air traffic. Round and round we go year after year.

But at least the message is now out that the internet has been rigged as regards to chemtrail research.

The other classic is the Mt. Pinatubo volcano. When it erupted, the sulfates went high up and cooled the planet off.

Sorry for rambling, man. It just feels good to see we are all on the same page.

This is how myself and Lophofo became friends quick at the refugee forum, Gastronamus Cafe. We wanted to figure this out. Swampgas basically blew that place up by banning me.

This is really not rocket science. It's a shame it took so long to form a real escape from the rigged chemtrail forums. Thanks Isard. Excellent post.
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby socrates » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:19 am

Sorry to copy and paste like the disinfo crowd. Unlike them, I'm actually trying to help spell out the true significance of things. The dark side provides tons of clutter with no clear explanations. i get attacked so much, because this is the #1 website for answers. Not to be a snob, but I have a graduate degree in the social sciences. i had a teaching job, but when 9/11 hit, I had the gall to have classes asking, "Why Did They Do That?" In academia, we have to prove our points. we have to consider the devil advocates. We're not meant to brainwash. Nonetheless, there is a very good reason why a small chunk of academia leans left. It's called reality.

It was my first job after substituting. i was pumped. Earlier in life i wanted to save the planet. With the teaching job, I felt like I could make a difference that way with grassroots. i was naive at the time to believe that we were living in a democracy, and that each person could make a great potential difference if reached, if taught to think for themselves. Why would terrosits blow up the World Trade Center? that took us into the history of terrorism and Middle eastern politics, etc.. I guess my crime was to not provide the standard propaganda that led us to the illegal war in Iraq. And I do think the official 9/11 explanation was shady. I think whoever did the anthrax did 9/11. All we need is facts and common sense.

Long story short: The public schools are totally corrupt. The history of education can be looked into. There is a reason why public schools support the status quo. All the major countries way back when, England, Russia, etc. had the same evolution that us Yanks had. There is a reason why it is easy for people of different cultures to interact. The world is more on the same page than any shallow enigma approach to solving the world's crises.

I met CrystalRose right when my Mom was passing away. We are friends now in real life. As for my mom, she was very cool and put up a great battle against cancer. She thought I was wrong about the chemtrails. She said they were contrails that had been there her whole life. But then she saw the global dimming show on PBS. She said I was vindicated.

That was the time I decided to write a lot more on chemtrails, that mid-2006 time period. When I got shit on by the fake network in early 2007, I took it personally and started going after them. But not just them. The whole internet. Sorry my grammar is off. But this is the blogosphere. We write the best we can. It doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be sincere with at least a modicum of discipline. It can be fun. It can be enlightening. It is what it is. And it has been exposed as what it has been.

Be aware, however, that there is a lot of controlled opposition on the internet. I am proud of what I accomplished with this website. I am off of highspeed, now on dial-up. But I promise to keep looking around for the chemtrail news.

Like i said before, I am not an intellectual snob. But I must stand up and proclaim that this really is the best chemtrail website on the internet.

People can post tinfoil here. i just want it to be in the second forum. That doesn't mean the second chemtrail forum is a form of dungeon. There is a lot of good stuff in there.

Something like the Chodduvosky {sp?} article Isard posted, I bit my lip and said so be it because there are a lot of goodies in that article. I appreciated the post and trust him. We have to watch each others' backs. We have to find like-minded sincere people to get the word out about chemtrails. The better the presentation, the quicker we reach the critical mass needed to get this bullshit stopped. That's been the problem over the years, the chemtrail gatekeeping. That is why the second forum is important, too.

I personally have no doubts at all as to what is going on. Let's just call this, my part, the cummulation of two years of researching and writing about chemtrails. {by the way- off-topic: i think Aubuchont is Stitcherman. They look like the same person, just at different angles. I think Stitcherman from CTC, his picture was from a younger age. If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt the possibility based on his other proven sock puppets, we then can conclude that he is a paid fake. That would mean he can be clearly shown to play both sides of the fence on issues. At BradBlog he referred to chemtrail people as being from a different societal group. That was a slip up. There is no contest, when we let the reader decide, imho.

Stitcherman is a global warming denier. Lou is believer in man-made global warming. I think the stats have been lowered at Gastronamus. I think they have been artificially increased at Megasprayer. Anyway, the crowd i exposed, they aren't the be all, end all of all the convolution. I tackled it all. I am a self-proclaimed trollbuster. But the key is, one needs to bash the troll, then get back on topic.

Here's the new big article hitting the zeitgeist circuit.

{educational purposes}

The Guardian
Geo-engineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming

Artificial clouds and creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae are among the ideas scientists say must now be considered

* Alok Jha, science correspondent
* guardian.co.uk,
* Monday September 01 2008 09:54 BST

Artificial clouds to reflect away sunlight, creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae and the global use of synthetic carbon-neutral transport fuels are just three of the climate transforming technologies in need of urgent investigation, according to leading scientists. The eminent group argue that, with governments failing to grasp the urgent need for measures to combat dangerous climate change, radical – and possibly dangerous – solutions must now be seriously considered.

The idea of engineering on a planetary scale in a bid to control climate has been around for more than 50 years but, to date, has remained on the fringes. The potential for dramatic and beneficial change has hitherto been outweighed by the risk of unexpected side-effects in the complex climate system, with global consequences. Now, in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, climate scientists and engineers have brought together the latest research and issued a call for a far-reaching assessment of a raft of geo-engineering techniques.

"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking," argues Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California. If a decision is made to move ahead with climate engineering, he says, then it will be essential to understand the point at which the risks and costs of geo-engineering outweigh the impacts of global warming.

Not everyone is so unequivocally positive, however, including Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. In an overall assessment of the geo-engineering challenge, he notes that critics ask whether it is socially feasible to expect the many centuries of international political stability and co-operation that would be needed to operate global scale schemes. He adds that the potential also exists for conflicts between nations if geo-engineering projects go wrong.


Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Caldeira calculates that reflecting just 2% of the Sun's light from the right places on Earth (mainly the Arctic) would be enough to counteract the warming effect from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.

In a separate study, Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh proposes building 300-tonne ships that could spray micrometre-sized drops of seawater into the air under stratocumulus clouds. "The method is not intended to make new clouds. It will just make existing clouds whiter," he wrote. The ships would drag turbines in their wake, which would provide the power needed to spray the water.


The growth of marine algae and other phytoplankton captures vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but growth is often limited by a lack of essential nutrients. Adding such nutrients, such as iron or nitrates, to stimulate growth was studied by a team led by Richard Lampitt of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. The organisms incorporate atmospheric CO2 as they grow and, when they die, sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking the carbon with them.

Lampitt argues for a large-scale experiments of an area of ocean measuring 100km by 100km and monitored by an independent team of scientists. "Once this research has been carried out, it will be the responsibility of the science community to perform appropriate cost-benefit-risk analyses in order to inform policy."

However, there is at present a moratorium around the world on iron-seeding experiments. "The idea is unpopular with the public because it is perceived as meddling with nature," writes Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and Wajih Naqvi of the National Institute of Oceanography in India. But they say rejecting seeding is premature as there have been no experiments to date that fully test the concept and the counter-arguments are based on worst-case scenarios.


More a fifth of the world's human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide come from transport. While technical fixes for these emissions might not count as geo-engineering by the strictest definition, their global effect means they can be considered alongside other options to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. In the long term, experts believe people should be driving electric or hydrogen-fueled cars but those technologies will take too long to arrive for Frank Zeman of Columbia University and David Keith of the University of Calgary.

They propose the development of synthetic fuels called carbon-neutral hydrocarbons (CNHC) as a near-term alternative to petrol and diesel. Made by reacting together carbon dioxide and hydrogen, these fuels can be used in cars without the need for major modification of either vehicles or infrastructure. More importantly, burning them would not contribute to global warming, provided the component ingredients have been manufactured in a carbon-neutral way. The CO2 could come directly from the air, from plants or else from coal-fired power stations using carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). The latter method could also reduce the potential problems of the planned worldwide increase in the number of fossil-fuel power stations. The International Energy Agency predicts the world's use of power will increase by 50% by 2030, with 77% of that coming from fossil fuels; CCS holds the promise of preventing up to 90% of the carbon emissions from a power station escaping into the atmosphere.

Wild Card

Other ideas considered by scientists, though not in the papers published today, include scrubbing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Klaus Lackner of Columbia University has designed a machine that could, if built to full scale, take up the CO2 emissions of 15,000 cars. With around 250,000 such machines, it would be possible to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as the world is currently pumping into it. The gas could then be stored underground or used in a manufacturing process.

An idea further into the realms of the fantastic involves using shiny spacecraft to block sunlight. Scientists have suggested launching a constellation of free-flying craft that would sit between the Sun and Earth forming a cylindrical cloud around half the Earth's diameter and 10 times longer. "Approximately 10% of the sunlight passing through the 60,000 mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the Sun would be diverted away from the Earth, which would uniformly reduce sunlight over the planet by approximately 2%," writes Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. The cost would be a dazzling $100bn (£55.5bn) a year.
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

ETC Group: US Gov Push for Geoengineering: unacceptable

Unread postby Isard » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:56 am

Gambling with Gaia

On the Eve of the Release of UN Climate Change Report
ETC Group Warns that US Government’s Push for Geoengineering is Unacceptable
Type: News Item
Date: Feb 01, 2007
Language: English


On the day before the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sounds its loudest alarm yet, ETC Group warns that some OECD states, led by the United States, are betting on a pie-in-the-sky techno-fix to address climate change. “Geoengineering” refers to the intentional, large-scale manipulation of the environment to bring about environmental change. With no hope for Kyoto, little political will to ask industry or voters to change lifestyles and a growing recognition that carbon trading is a farce, some governments are concluding that massive earth restructuring is the only way out. The Guardian reported earlier this week that the US government is lobbying the IPCC to promote geoengineering activities, such as deliberately polluting the stratosphere to deflect sunlight and lower temperatures. (1)

“We already know that humans can geoengineer planet earth – that’s why we have climate change,” said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group. “The notion that we can successfully correct our unintentional destructiveness with intentional geoengineering is ludicrous. For the governments who caused the problem to experiment together on geoengineering solutions – outside the UN and without the participation of the South who bear the brunt of global warming and would likely bear the risks of geoengineering – is a grave miscalculation,” said Mooney.

According to ETC Group’s 18-page report, “Gambling with Gaia, http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/606/01/geoengineeringcomfeb0107.pdfat least 9 national governments and the European Union have supported experiments to spread iron filings on the ocean surface to nurture plankton and sequester carbon dioxide. At least a dozen additional countries are involved in stratospheric weather/climate modification. Commercial carbon traders are engaging in ocean fertilization as well. The scientific debate and the government/commercial experimentation are taking place in the absence of public participation.

ETC Group concludes that geoengineering is the wrong response to climate change. Any experimentation to alter the structure of the oceans or the stratosphere should not proceed without thorough and informed public debate on its consequences, and UN authorization. Geoengineering must not be undertaken unilaterally by any nation. The United Nations must reaffirm (and, if necessary, expand) the Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) recognizing that any unilateral modification of weather or climate is a threat to neighboring countries and, very likely, the entire international community.

Other UN agencies dealing with the impact of climate change must also address this issue. This includes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), UN Environment Programme (UNEP), UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

“Most importantly, the IPCC should revisit the concept and practice of carbon trading and replace this market-based, so-called ’solution’ with direct measurable standards for CO2 emission reduction at source,” said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. “Instead of coming up with new technological fixes that will cause potentially catastrophic problems, particularly for the South, OECD states must take seriously efforts to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and to curtail other wasteful practices that contribute to global warming,” added Ribeiro.

The issue of geoengineering and its far-reaching social, environmental, ethical and political implications should be on the agenda of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 3-14 December 2007 in Bali, and the World Meteorological Organization’s 15th Congress in May 2007.

ETC contact information:

Pat Mooney: etc@etcgroup.org +1 613 241-2267

Hope Shand or Kathy Jo Wetter
hope@etcgroup.org +1 919 960-5767
kjo@etcgroup.org +1 919 960-5223

Silvia Ribeiro
silvia@etcgroup.org + 52 5555 6326 64

(1) David Adam, “US Government answer to global warming: Smoke and giant mirrors,” The Guardian, 27 January 2007.
User avatar
truth warrior
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:04 pm
Location: Uruguay

Re: Great Finds By Isard- This Is Not Science Fiction

Unread postby socrates » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:33 pm

This is all about probable cause. We have it. All Minnis, NASA, and the other fronts have is propaganda and the evoking of authority. The evidence is now abundant, all from credible sources. Plus, this forum is the historical record for the exposing of a rigged, chemtrails discussion. People are being shamed from asking our politicians to do what is right and put a halt to all inorganic manipulation of the skies.

The ptb's did not want like-minded people joining forces and articulating the obvious:

Only Certain Aircraft Are Involved!

The disinfo says that we have latched onto a hoax. Reality tells a far different story. It should be apparent to anyone who has read a bit here why we have been so viciously attacked.

Thanks again to our amigo from Espana- lo siento, not sure how to make the tilde, have always been impressed how you guys can roll those r's. Gracias. Great finds once again.

{fair use excerpts- educational}




This next one is a good read. I recommend people check it out. Here are some excerpts.


The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype

WE HAVE ALREADY experienced two major cycles of promise and hype in the history of weather modification, and they have both demonstrated large-scale pathological features. The first cycle, initiated by James Espyʼs speculative proposal in the 1830s to enhance precipitation by lighting huge fires, thus stimulating convective updrafts, preceded the pseudo-scientific hype of the western rainmakers, or so-called “pluviculturalists.” The second cycle, dating to the 1940s, began with promising discoveries in “cloud seeding” by Irving Langmuir and his associates at the General Electric Corporation, but rapidly devolved into a suite of unsupportable claims by cold warriors and again, western rainmakers. A third cycle has begun recently.1 In October 2003 the U.S. National Research Council issued a report titled, “Critical issues in weather modification research.” In the same month the U.S. Pentagon released a controversial report, “An abrupt climate change scenario and its implications for United States national security,” that explored how global warming could lead to rapid and catastrophic global cooling.2 Only three months later, in January 2004, a symposium on “Macro-engineering Options for Climate Change Management and Mitigation” was held in Cambridge, England under the joint sponsorship of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the business-oriented Cambridge-MIT Institute.3 The NRC study cited looming social and environmental challenges such as water shortages and drought, property damage and loss of life from severe storms, and the threat of “inadvertent” climate change as justifications for new national and international initiatives in weather modification research. On a grander, planetary scale, the authors of the DoD report recommended that the government should “explore geo-engineering options that control the climate,” while the Tyndall Centre symposium set out to “identify, debate, and evaluate” possible, but highly controversial options for the design and construction of engineering projects for the management and mitigation of global climate change. These policy initiatives were surrounded by a modicum of promise and an excess of hype, but none had adequate recourse to historical analysis. In November 2006 I participated in a conference sponsored by the NASA-Ames and the Carnegie Institution on “Managing Solar Radiation,” one of the many euphemisms for geoengineering. I was the sole historian. This paper brings the checkered history of weather modification to bear on these very recent initiatives and asks, are we at the start of a third cycle—this time involving both weather and climate modification? ........

Although couched in the language of uncertainty and swathed in caveats, the conferenceʼs proposals coincided with the initiation of pilot projects and served to move the speculative geoengineering agenda closer to the mainstream. In the language of the organizers, “At the very least, such options may be considered as emergency policy options in the event of more adverse climate change impacts than expected, or less effective carbon reduction measures than anticipated.” The conference did not specify “adverse climate change impacts” nor how much climate change would be needed to trigger a geoengineering option. Less-than-effective carbon reduction measures are just about certain to occur.

Among the technical options considered, were (1) carbon sequestration (capture and storage) by geological disposal in landforms or in the oceans, atmospheric scrubbing, ocean fertilization, and enhancement of terrestrial sinks; (2) albedo modification on a planetary scale, for example, by launching mirrors or reflective particles into orbit, adding aerosols to the stratosphere, enhancing cloud reflectivity, and modifying land surfaces; (3) climate design (also known as terra-formation) by attempting to control trace gas concentrations, glaciers, and photosynthesis; and (4) reducing impacts by constructing animal migration corridors and by diverting rivers and glacial melt water in an attempt to stabilize ocean currents and sea level.61

A paper on “Active climate stabilization albedo control,” by Edward Teller (now deceased) and his protégés at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory proposed that both global warming and the onset of an ice age could be prevented by injecting appropriate sub-microscopic chaff particles into the Stratosphere.62 In the case of excess warming, the chaff would reflect about two percent of incoming solar radiation to cool the planet by up to four degrees; in the case of unwanted cooling, a different kind of chaff could be used to enhance the natural greenhouse effect by the same amount. In either case, the authors estimated that “albedoengineering” or active technical management of radiative forcing would cost less than $1B per year or much less than one percent of the cost of “bureaucratic management” of greenhouse gases. Moreover, in their reading, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Art. 3.3) requires reducing bureaucratic management, since it calls for “ensur[ing] global benefits at the lowest possible cost.”63 Notwithstanding the authorsʼ hopes of generating more colorful sunsets, their proposal to control global warming would probably turn the blue sky white while reducing direct beam solar radiation by about twenty percent.64

At the Tyndall Centre meeting two other scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Bala Govindasamy and Ken Caldira, provided a valuable counterpoint to the enthusiasm of Teller et al.65 They argued that the technical, environmental, political, and economic challenges of geoengineering schemes demand further investigation. Even on the merely technical level, they warned that geoengineering could subject ecosystems to unknown and possibly adverse impacts, and that the failure of a geoengineering system could expose the Earth to extremely rapid climate change. They thought the better way to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions is by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, an eminently reasonable conclusion echoing that of D. Whitney King over a decade ago.66

The vision of the organizers of the Tyndall Centre conference took in a full range of participants. These included scientists, engineers, economists, and representatives of governments and NGOs, but did not extend to historians of science and technology or to ethicists, although one valuable paper by David Keith presented a policy history of geoengineering. Keith argued that the discourse had been largely pragmatic, based on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, and that “serious ethical arguments about geoengineering are almost nonexistent.” Ethically, a large-scale environmental tech fix would be imposed on others, typically by the will of the few; in contrast, a medical tech fix, for example like heart surgery, is at the appropriate choice of the individual patient. Recent sessions at the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science examined geoengineering history, ethics, and policy, but more work is needed.67


Understanding, prediction, and control are the fantasies of both science and science fiction. For some, controlling the weather, climate, or chemical composition of the atmosphere, is more desirable than merely understanding it or predicting its behavior. We have examined two past cycles of promise and hype involving manufactured weather and climate in an attempt to illuminate what appears to be the start of a third rhetorical cycle. Fantasies are again giving way to seemingly rational, technical proposals. But they are only rational without their histories. In the recent flurry of activity beginning in 2003, as well as in the past cycles, massive and immodest proposed interventions served to subvert or at least submerge more fundamental and perhaps more reasonable aspects of cloud physics and climate dynamics. Instead they came to reflect larger social tensions, values, and public apprehensions. James Espy was the leading meteorologist of his day; Irving Langmuir and his team at GE developed many of the basic techniques of cloud physics. However, in both historical cycles, the promise of weather control soon gave way to excessive hype and pathology. No one doubts the competence of the scientists and engineers involved in the recent NRC and DoD reports or the Tyndall Centre and NASA/Carnegie conferences. However, by emphasizing the purely technical or economic aspects of strategies of weather and climate control, bypassing understanding and prediction, and neglecting the historical, ethical, and social dimensions, we are in danger of entering a new cycle of discourse saturated with hype, the heirs of an impoverished debate.


The pathological history of weather and climate modification: Three cycles of promise and hype


The chequered history of weather and climate modification exhibits a modicum of promise and an excess of hype. This paper examines two completed historical cycles: the first, dating from 1839, involved western proprietary rainmaking or “pluviculture”; the second, from 1946 to 1978 involved “cloud seeding,” commercial rainmaking, and the attempted weaponization of the clouds. Recently, discussion of weather and climate modification has returned to the science-policy agenda, framed as seemingly inevitable responses to killer storms and global warming. The long history of deceptive and delusional attempts to “control” nature, however, raised serious questions about the rationality of these options.

KEY WORDS: climate control, climate modification, cloud seeding, geoengineering, pathological science, weather control, weather modification

User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Noctilucent Clouds

Unread postby socrates » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:08 am

This is how I see this story. Noctilucent clouds are a result of modernity and the Industrial Revolution. Basic science tells us that anthropogenic clouds can be produced when pollution particles latch onto moisture and then grow. Now the reason why contrails are not chemtrails, even though the same basic principles are in place, is because there is simply not enough mass in the commercial jetliner exhaust to account for the size and development of man-made clouds.

Basically, it is very much colder the higher up one goes. And all this goes to the heart of the strawman argument of chemtrails as geoengineering global warming. The chemtrails are too low to persist and spread out like they do if they are from commercial planes. But get those particulates way up closer to space, then that is where the supersaturated ice explanation can actually come into play. Explaining chemtrails as super-saturated ice is disinformation. The astroturfers do use pure science for their debunking. But they are using rigged stats. All they have is the evoking of authority, which unfortunately works with the vast majority of people. Thankfully, there have been intrepid reporters like Paul Moyer and Jeff Ferrell who didn't fall for those lies and conclude that chemtrails is a crazy hoax.

Has geoengineering already begun? I wouldn't doubt it. But it feels like astronomy and space exploration has been privatised, so how is one to know? People can say that NASA is a civilian, governmental entity, but no, it is really part of the US war and capitalistic machine. These are the people who were involved in setting off nuclear bombs in space, no? Who else but NASA is going to be involved with space weapons and whatever else is going on way out of our view?

So just as the American family farmer was driven off the land by conglomerations receiving corporate welfare, elites with NASA as the false front have taken over ownership of space.

There is a reason why the internet is filled with enigmas and convolution. An informed people can do the right thing. A snookered people can easily be subjugated into brownshirt status.

Puzzling Property Of Night-shining Clouds At Edge Of Space Explained

{educational fair use}

ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2008) — An explanation for a strange property of noctilucent clouds--thin, wispy clouds hovering at the edge of space at 85 km altitude--has been proposed by an experimental plasma physicist at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), possibly laying to rest a decades-long mystery.

What is a Noctilucent Cloud? -- Polar mesospheric clouds, as they are known to those who study them from satellite observations, are also often called "noctilucent," or night shining, clouds as seen by ground-based observers. Because of their high altitude, near the edge of space, noctilucent clouds shine at night when the Sun's rays hit them from below while the lower atmosphere is bathed in darkness. (Credit: NASA)

Noctilucent clouds, also known as night-shining clouds, were first described in 1885, two years after the massive eruption of Krakatoa, a volcanic island in Indonesia, sent up a plume of ash and debris up to 80 km into Earth's atmosphere. The eruption affected global climate and weather for years and may have produced the first noctilucent clouds.

The effects of Krakatoa eventually faded, but the unusual electric blue clouds remain, nestled into a thin layer of Earth's mesosphere, the upper atmosphere region where pressure is 10,000 times less than at sea level. The clouds, which are visible during the deep twilight, are most often observed during the summer months at latitudes from 50 to 70 degrees north and south--although in recent years they have been seen as far south as Utah and Colorado. Noctilucent clouds are a summertime phenomenon because, curiously, the atmosphere at 85 km altitude is coldest in summer, promoting the formation of the ice grains that make up the clouds.

"The incidence of noctilucent clouds seems to be increasing, perhaps because of global warming," says Paul M. Bellan, a professor of applied physics at Caltech.

Twenty-five years ago, researchers at Poker Flat, Alaska, discovered that the clouds were highly reflective to radar. This unusual property has long puzzled scientists. Bellan, reporting in the August issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, now has an explanation: the ice grains in noctilucent clouds are coated with a thin film of metal, made of sodium and iron. The metal film causes radar waves to reflect off ripples in the cloud in a manner analogous to how X-rays reflect from a crystal lattice.

Sodium and iron atoms collect in the upper atmosphere after being blasted off incoming micrometeors. These metal atoms settle into a thin layer of vapor that sits just above the altitude at which noctilucent clouds occur. Astronomers recently have been using the sodium layer to create laser-illuminated artificial guide stars for adaptive optics telescopes that remove the distorting affects of atmospheric turbulence to produce clearer celestial images.

Measurements of the density of sodium and iron atomic vapor layers show that the metal vapor is depleted by over 80 percent when noctilucent clouds are present. "Noctilucent clouds have been shown to act very much like a flycatcher for sodium and iron atoms," Bellan says. Indeed, in laboratory experiments, other researchers have found that at the frigid temperatures (-123 degrees Celsius) within noctilucent clouds, atoms in sodium vapor quickly become deposited on the surface of ice to form a metallic film.

"If you have metal-coated ice grains in noctilucent clouds, the radar reflectivity can become enormous" he says. "This reflectivity is not the sum of reflections from individual ice grains, which would not produce a very large reflection. Instead, what happens is that ripples in the cloud of metal-coated ice grains reflect in unison and reinforce each other, somewhat like an army marching in step across a bridge causes the bridge to vibrate."

Adapted from materials provided by California Institute of Technology, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: John Holdren to be Named as Obama's Science Adviser

Unread postby socrates » Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:21 pm

Harvard's Holdren to be Obama's science adviser, Globe learns

I did a bit of research into this, not too much, but it appears that there is a lot of propaganda circulating concerning this selection. There is one Holdren quote running the circuit which seems to suggest he is against the use of geoengineering. But if one looks into this further, he is simply acting as a good cop to bad cops like Wigley and Benford.

Here's the money quote one can easily find all over the net.

The ‘geo-engineering’ approaches considered so far appear to be afflicted with some combination of high costs, low leverage, and a high likelihood of serious side effects.

The problem with taking this one sentence at face value is that it appears to have been taken out of context.

Holdren is affiliated with many science bigwigs including the National Academy of Sciences. While it is a good development to move away from the Bush Administration's denial of climate change, it is fairly disgusting how Frankenscientists continue to astroturf their nonsensical ideas. I have seen some good ideas out of Holdren. My fear is that other than one sentence taken out of context, he may actually become a catalyst for Dr. Evil geoengineering being legalised.

I stumbled across a google group on geoengineering including many of the various pompous assholes who believe we can engineer our way out of climate change. In other words, these creeps with the big names and degrees believe we need to play the role of God.


Who the hell do these people think they are trying to rewrite history? Geoengineering is a disgusting, techno bullshit response to a world run on greed and stupidity. How about we just stop running the earth into the ground while astroturfing bullshit plans to put band-aids into the atmosphere? Where do these creeps get the idea that any of their grotesque ideas have any credibility? This reminds me of the bullshit that Patrick Minnis and NASA has generated concerning chemtrails versus contrails. Just because someone has a big name and degree doesn't mean they can simply evoke authority and make up lies. Patrick Minnis of NASA took a total beatdown in the Big Bluff Called thread here. PATRICK MINNIS MADE HUNDREDS OF POSTS AT CHEMTRAIL CENTRAL AND CARNICOM'S FORUM. MINNIS HAS NEVER PROVEN THAT COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS ARE CREATING CONTRAIL OUTBREAKS. MINNIS HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN ALL PROBABILITY A SPOOK! JUST LOOK AT THAT NASA'S BIG BLUFF CALLED THREAD. LOOK AT MINNIS' SO-CALLED EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE NO CHEMTRAILS OR TO REALLY SUM UP HIS LIES THAT CHEMTRAILS ARE NON-DELIBERATE CONTRAILS. HE HAS ZERO PROOF. WHAT HE DOES HAVE, HOWEVER, IS A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO MARK STEADHAM AND CHEMTRAIL CENTRAL.

As for the blowhards to be found in the last link to the google group, I am not saying they are spooks. I don't think they are. I wouldn't be surprised if they are rightwingers or Libby type liberals, you know, those "liberals" who would go to work for GW Bush and Dick Cheney. But I am saying that they are megalomaniacs. I am saying that they are full of shit, that they are the result of the Enlightenment beating down the Counter-Enlightenment. These are brownshirts. These are rich people full of themselves who have been brainwashed by the propaganda. I do not believe that any of them has had a sincere thought since grade school. These people are all about themselves. They are no different than overpriced athletes or movie stars. They are no different than any other hacks and shills who confuse luck for skill. They are, in short, smart people with relatively no moral worth, who like to make love to the mirror.

From the google group, from that one thread I found, are the following names:

Ken Caldeira
John Latham
William Fulkerson
Tom Wigley
Gregory Benford
Mike MacCracken
John Gorman
Dan Whaley
Brian Alano
Eugene I. Gordon

To each and every one of you pompous jackasses, I hope you find this post. You need to realise that each of you is on the wrong side of history. You may have a lot of money to go with your fake prestige, but reality says that you are Dr. Evils, that as the world continues to crumble, you continue to do the dirty work for the evil military corporate structure. YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN DR. EVIL. YOU ARE DR. EVILS WHO HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT PEACE AND LOVE. YOUR IDEAS ARE PREPOSTEROUS. YOUR IDEAS FOR GEOENGINEERING ARE BEYOND RIDICULOUS. YOU ARE IMMORAL. YOU ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE CULTURAL WASTELAND CALLED AMERICA.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: China

Unread postby socrates » Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:33 am


Beijing blanketed by snow after China seeds clouds to beat drought
February 20, 2009
Jane Macartney in Beijing

A carpet of snow blanketing the Forbidden City and the ancient halls and courtyards of the Lama Temple has transformed China’s capital into a fairyland. Hundreds have played truant from offices to sneak a peak of the first snowfall of the winter.

But nature has been given a helping hand. The heavy snowfalls over Beijing have principally been induced by meteorological offices to try to mitigate the most severe drought to grip northern China in nearly half a century.

City officials have been blasting chemicals into clouds over northern China to create the first precipitation in more than 100 days. The first flurries fell on the capital on Tuesday. By Tuesday, more than 500 cigarette-sized sticks of silver iodide had been seeded into clouds above Beijing from 28 rocket-launch bases around the city, said the Beijing Weather Modification Command Centre.

But this was still nowhere near enough to alleviate the drought that is threatening wheat harvests in several northern provinces....

So heavy was the fall that officials closed 12 highways around Beijing yesterday. Residents got up early to sweep the carpet away from their front doors with bamboo brushes. Few are equipped with spades, since snow has become such a rarity in recent years. Road sweepers were drafted in to work overtime, pushing snow into piles against pavements and around trees....

Also, a weatherman's blog mentions the unthinkable, what all chemmies are aware of, that the US military plans to control the weather by 2025. Any relation to Jeff?

Cloud Seeding Gone Wrong in China, US History
Jesse Ferrell
February 23, 2009

Stormfury seeding diagram by NOAA.


You can read more about Project Stormfury on NOAA's site, including the official reasons for it being disbanded. More information about why hurricane modification is not simple, can be read on my blog entry "Bomb 'Em or Dust 'Em".

And don't forget, the U.S. Air Force said in 1996 that they plan to "own the weather" by 2025.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby anthony.r.duncan » Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:06 am

Sulfates are hardly the answer to global warming if they:

a) defoliate our forests, and

b) increase the size of the ozone hole.

Which they do.

So sulfates are a NON-STARTER.

Then, about late March/early April, the Discovery Channel website began to not have links to this forum anymore. All of their other shows still have their forums, links, & such. Then, as April moved along, the Discovery Channel website soon had no links whatsoever to the Chemical Contrails forum. Eventually, all links to the show that was aired & its "open forum" were completely gone from the Discovery Channel website.

So, just to verify what I am saying: Go to the Discovery Channel website: dsc.discovery.com
Try & navigate the site. Try & search for that forum. Try & find any reference to that show whatsoever. It's like they scrubbed their website clean of records of that show & the forum for it. Very odd. Very suspicious appearing. Very unprofessional of The Discovery Channel.

Perhaps they discovered the hundreds of research papers (over 54 years) which point to contrails persisting in saturated layers of the stratosphere, and have also the knowledge that air travel has increased fifty-fold over that time, further saturating the stratosphere, leading to a tendency over time of any well-overflown area to get covered over by cirrus clouds.

These are Google Search Results 1 - 6 out of 645 for “paper” “aviation” “saturated” “atmosphere” “contrails” “-chemtrails” “-aerosols” made on Dec 19th 2008.

“Contrail Formation and Persistence” - http://students.ou.edu/J/Thomas.A.Jones-1/contrail.html

Long lasting contrails like the ones observed usually occur in parts of the sky that have preexisting patches of cirrus clouds. Since the cirrus clouds are formed of ice crystals like the contrails, cirrus clouds in a region of the sky suggests supersaturation with respect to ice and sufficient heterogeneous nuclei for ice crystals to form. GOES-8 satellite photographs taken at approximately at the same time as the contrails were present show significant cirrus clouds around the Norman area providing the condition necessary for contrail persistence.

S J Moss (1999). The testing and verification of contrail forecasts using pilot observations from aircraft. Meteorological Applications, 6 , pp 193-200
doi:10.1017/S1350482799001115 - http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=48191

Recent research has shown that old forecasting techniques may not be wholly applicable to modern aircraft that now use more efficient engines. In order to compare the performance of both the old and new forecasting techniques a validation trial was carried out over a nine-month period in which RAF pilots reported when and where contrails did and did not occur.

Wakes of war: contrails and the rise of air power, 1918-1945 Part II—the air war over Europe, 1939-1945 -

It is easy to see that, if the air is so cold that it cannot hold much water as vapor, the water in the exhaust may be sufficient, when added to the moisture already in the atmosphere, to raise the humidity in the turbulent wake to or beyond the saturation value. If this condition exists, some of the water vapor will condense and a visible trail will form.

A Laboratory Study of Contrails - http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/15/2/pdf/i1520-0469-15-2-149.pdf

The existence of supercooled water at temperatures significantly colder than -40C is not a generally-accepted fact, but has been suspected by theorists for some time. Fig. 5 demonstrates that such supercooling of contrail condensate, whatever its purity, is possible.

Contrail observations over Southern and Eastern Asia in NOAA/AVHRR data and comparisons to contrail simulations in a GCM - http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778783829~db=all

400 NOAA-14 satellite scenes from four months of the year 1998 were analysed. Both regions show sufficient air traffic to produce an observable amount of contrails. Thus we are able to measure for the first time contrail frequencies in the tropics and compare it to a nearby mid latitudinal region. The annual average of the daily mean contrail cloud coverage is 0.13% for the Thailand region and about 0.25% for the Japan region. For both regions the contrail cover is largest during spring. The daily cycle shows surprisingly high contrail coverage during night in spite of lower air traffic densities during night time.

Proceedings of the Aircraft Research Association -

Persistent contrails, which in time degenerate into cirrus cloud, only form in air which is saturated with respect to ice and the conditions for their formation and persistence are reasonably well understood. There’s no prospect of a technological fix for that. If you fly through an ice-saturated region in the atmosphere, you’ll produce a persistent contrail.

You could, perhaps, look up the other 639 references, or select other relevant search terms, but you’ll notice I’ve chosen “chemtrails” and “aerosol” as terms to be excluded.

Perhaps the Discovery Channel has put two and two together, and realized that all the complainants know nothing about such a natural turn of events and are incapable of understanding the atmospheric science involved, and have decided to simply stop poking the snake...
Last edited by anthony.r.duncan on Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:19 am, edited 3 times in total.


Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 5 guests