Welcome
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

Geoengineering and Hard Science Made Easy

Unread postby socrates » Wed May 30, 2007 8:31 pm

{with the merged threads, the adjusted view count is +528}


The biggest problem for anyone arguing that the aerosol operations are for fighting global warming is that plans proposed by the Teller and Crutzen camps are for the placement of aluminum particulates and sulfates, respectively, into the stratosphere. The aerosol operations are taking place in the troposphere. This is not to say, however, that the aerosol operations have nothing to do with Frankensteinian attempts to ineptly stem climate change. In fact, they appear most likely to be concerning this. There is definitely a military component to fake contrail generation, but it seems the scale of the activities precludes that it has mostly to do with the oncoming earth changes. I believe that tptb care more about the status quo of inequality and wars, than they do about the planet and its people. To me, geoengineering ideas like these are nothing short of pigs playing God. Anyone remember Jerry Brown when he ran for President? He was the original Kucinich, well there was also George McGovern too. But Gerry Brown said we could create jobs by saving the environment. But no, we ended up with Reagan and his counter-revolution instead.


Here are some cool links for the novice to be able to quickly hone in on these ideas.

Can Dr. Evil Save The World?
Forget about a future filled with wind farms and hydrogen cars. The Pentagon's top weaponeer says he has a radical solution that would stop global warming now -- no matter how much oil we burn

JEFF GOODELL Posted Nov 03, 2006

Image
Illustration by Jonathan Barkat


FPIF Strategic Dialogue
Global Warming: The Quick Fix Is In

Pat Mooney | February 20, 2007

excerpts:
Hopes for the Kyoto Protocol are fading, and carbon trading is a farce. To arrest climate change, industrialized states can either "bite the bullet" and adopt socially responsible policies to dramatically cut fossil fuel use and useless consumption. Or they can hope for a "silver bullet"—some new techno-fix that might let them continue to pollute and avoid human extinction. The silver bullet may be winning.

At the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. government is lobbying for "geoengineering" activities such as deliberately polluting the stratosphere to deflect sunlight and lower temperatures....


Paul Crutzen stirred up a tempest in a teapot in August 2006 when he wrote an " editorial essay" in Climatic Change magazine calling for active research into the use of "sub-micrometer"-sized sulfate-based aerosols to reflect sunlight in the stratosphere in order to cool the earth. Crutzen, a Nobel-prize winning scientist at the Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, opines that high-altitude balloons and artillery cannons could be used to blast sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, in effect, simulating a volcanic eruption. The sulfur dioxide would convert to sulfate particles. The cost, he reckons, would run between $25 and $50 billion per year—a figure he argues is well below the trillion dollars spent annually by the world's governments on defense. Crutzen notes that the price tag doesn't include the human cost of a half-million premature deaths from particulate pollution.....

The current U.S. administration and its counterparts in China and Russia are not likely to shy away from geoengineering the stratosphere or the ocean in order to save their oil industries or ward off disaster from their coastal cities. But they should.

Geoengineering is the wrong response to climate change. Experimentation that could alter the structure of the oceans or the stratosphere should not proceed without thorough and informed public debate on its consequences, and only with UN authorization. Geoengineering must not be undertaken unilaterally by any nation. The UN 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. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should revisit the concept and practice of carbon trading and replace this market-based "solution" with direct, measurable standards for CO 2 emission reduction at source. The industrialized states must redouble their efforts to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and to curtail other wasteful practices that contribute to global warming.

We've been down this road before. After World War II, the U.S. military and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography cooperated on studies that led to the atomic bomb testing in the Pacific being called "a wonderful oceanographic tool."28 The director of the Scripps oceanographic program, Roger Revelle, complained that "ignorance and emotionalism" dominated the discourse about radioactive waste dumping at sea. We have come to understand the perils of dumping such materials in the ocean. Let's not make the same mistakes again.



Geo-engineering in vogue
Yours truly even made a few humble posts in the comments section.


{on edit- this website has been taken down.}
airapparent.ca

also, hoover.org/publications/digest/3522851.html
ENVIRONMENT:
Sunscreen for Planet Earth

Global warming is too serious to be left to the politicians. Hoover fellow Edward Teller suggests a scientific solution to the problem. (If there is a problem, that is.)

Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out. As a scientist, I must stand silent on this issue until it's resolved scientifically. As a citizen, however, I can tell you that I'm entertained by the high political theater that the nation's politicians have engaged in over the last few months. It's wonderful to think that the world is so very wealthy that a single nation--America--can consider spending $100 billion or so each year to address a problem that may not exist--and that, if it does exist, certainly has unknown dimensions.....
Last edited by socrates on Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Why isn't ozone hole depletion discussed as much as g.w.?

Unread postby socrates » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:05 pm

I am not saying that global warming is not an important subject. But what I am thinking is that "chemical trails" seem to be just as much, if not more, about blocking uv-b radiation than about cooling the planet.

Global 'Sunscreen' Has Likely Thinned, Report NASA Scientists 03.15.07
A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground.

The thinning of Earth’s “sunscreen” of aerosols since the early 1990s could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures. The finding, published in the March 16 issue of Science, may lead to an improved understanding of recent climate change. In a related study published last week, scientists found that the opposing forces of global warming and the cooling from aerosol-induced "global dimming" can occur at the same time.

"When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."

The study uses the longest uninterrupted satellite record of aerosols in the lower atmosphere, a unique set of global estimates funded by NASA. Scientists at GISS created the Global Aerosol Climatology Project by extracting a clear aerosol signal from satellite measurements originally designed to observe clouds and weather systems that date back to 1978. The resulting data show large, short-lived spikes in global aerosols caused by major volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991, but a gradual decline since about 1990. By 2005, global aerosols had dropped as much as 20 percent from the relatively stable level between 1986 and 1991.

The NASA study also sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface, which had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline, Mishchenko said.

While the Science paper does not prove that aerosols are behind the recent dimming and brightening trends -- changes in cloud cover have not been ruled out -- another new research result supports that conclusion In a paper published March 8 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.

The GISS research team conducted the most comprehensive experiment to date using computer simulations of Earth's 20th-century climate to investigate the dimming trend. The combined results from nine state-of-the-art climate models, including three from GISS, showed that due to increasing greenhouse gases and aerosols, the planet warmed at the same time that direct solar radiation reaching the surface decreased. The dimming in the simulations closely matched actual measurements of sunlight declines recorded from the 1960s to 1990.

Further simulations using one of the Goddard climate models revealed that aerosols blocking sunlight or trapping some of the sun's heat high in the atmosphere were the major driver in 20th-century global dimming. "Much of the dimming trend over the Northern Hemisphere stems from these direct aerosol effects," Romanou said. "Aerosols have other effects that contribute to dimming, such as making clouds more reflective and longer-lasting. These effects were found to be almost as important as the direct effects."

The combined effect of global dimming and warming may account for why one of the major impacts of a warmer climate -- the spinning up of the water cycle of evaporation, more cloud formation and more rainfall -- has not yet been observed. "Less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer air temperatures, so evaporation does not change very much," said Gavin Schmidt of GISS, a co-author of the paper. "Increased aerosols probably slowed the expected change in the hydrological cycle."

Whether the recent decline in global aerosols will continue is an open question. A major complicating factor is that aerosols are not uniformly distributed across the world and come from many different sources, some natural and some produced by humans. While global estimates of total aerosols are improving and being extended with new observations by NASA's latest generation of Earth-observing satellites, finding out whether the recent rise and fall of aerosols is due to human activity or natural changes will have to await the planned launch of NASA's Glory Mission in 2008.

“One of Glory's two instruments, the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor, will have the unique ability to measure globally the properties of natural and human-made aerosols to unprecedented levels of accuracy," said Mishchenko, who is project scientist on the mission.


Then there is this little know tidbit that backs up the idea that a major reason for the "spraying" in the troposphere could be about attempts at blocking harmful solar radiation from reaching the planet's surface.

sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/uvsens.html
Surface UV Dose Sensitivity to Atmospheric Conditions

1. Introduction
The amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the Earth is dependent on a variety of atmospheric factors, of which stratospheric ozone is the most important. Notwithstanding the significance of the ozone layer, other atmospheric conditions such as boundary layer aerosol, clouds, and boundary layer ozone can also have a significant impact on the amount of UV reaching the ground. This review discusses the sensitivity of surface-level ultraviolet radiation dose on varying levels of these relevant atmospheric constituents as derived from calculations of the multiple scattering radiative transfer model (Charache et al., 1994) used in the development of the UltraViolet Interactive Service (UVIS)....

2. Cloud Optical Depth Sensitivity
When evaluating the effect of cloud on the amount of UV reaching the surface, the two primary cloud parameters needed are (1) the amount of cloud covering the sky, and (2) the cloud optical depth. In this discussion we will focus on cloud optical depth, which is a measure of the opacity of the cloud.

In the simplest case, let us assume there is an overcast sky with a layer of uniform optical thickness....

4. Boundary Layer Ozone Sensitivity
Ozone in the troposphere and particularly in the boundary layer play an important role in surface UV budgets. Brühl and Crutzen (1989) indicated the disproportionate role that tropospheric ozone plays in UV-B absorption; more scattering events in the lower atmosphere due to greater molecular and aerosol scattering effectively lengthen the ozone path length in the troposphere, thus making a given quantity of ozone in the troposphere more effective in attenuating UV-B than an equal amount of ozone in the stratosphere.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

This is a good one too

Unread postby socrates » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:49 pm

Climate Engineering

A critical review of proposals, their scientific and political context, and possible impacts.

compiled for Scientists For Global Responsibility, November 1996
by Ben Matthews

Abstract:

This review of climate engineering proposals aims to provide a comprehensive resource of up to date information and ideas for people concerned about the development of large-scale technical fixes to counter the problem of global warming. The proposals fall into three main categories: increasing the reflection of solar radiation back to space, enhancing natural sinks of carbon dioxide, and direct disposal of carbon dioxide captured at source. In addition, proposals involving weather modification, ozone chemistry and terraforming Mars are mentioned briefly. Direct disposal of carbon dioxide is included because it involves exploitation of "global commons" such as the deep ocean, and because it is often compared with schemes to increase natural sinks.

Some of these proposals are realistic and thus a real cause for concern, whilst the reader may find amusement in reading some of the crazier schemes! All of these technical fixes are intended to tackle the symptom of the problem of fossil fuel consumption. The development of technology to encourage energy efficiency or renewable energy, on the other hand, which is intended to reduce that consumption, is much less controversial, and is not considered here....
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:06 pm

Futuristic fleet of 'cloudseeders'
VIEWPOINT
Professor John Latham

Some experts are proposing radical ideas to save us from disastrous climate change. But would they work? Professors John Latham and Stephen Salter have designed a fleet of yachts that would pump fine particles of sea-water into clouds, thickening them to reflect more of the Sun's rays. Here, Professor Latham talks about the proposal.


It was in 1946 that scientists first began trying to manipulate clouds.

They found that by firing tiny particles of silver iodide into rain-bearing clouds, they could induce rainfall.

Our idea of a fleet of "cloudseeders", however, was largely born from a remark made by my son Mike, decades ago.

We were on a mountainside in North Wales, looking west towards Ireland.

He asked why clouds were shiny at the top but dark at the bottom.

I explained how they were mirrors for incoming sunlight.

He pondered for a while, then grinned: "Soggy mirrors, Dad," he said.

The idea my colleagues and I are pursuing is to increase the amount of sunlight reflected back into space from the tops of thin, low-level clouds (marine stratocumuli, which cover about a quarter of the world's oceanic surface), thereby producing a cooling effect.

Calculations show that if we can increase the reflectivity by about 3%, the cooling will balance the global warming caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere (resulting from the burning of fossil fuels).

Cloud-seeding yachts

In order to deploy our scheme and produce adequate cooling, we would need to spray sea-water droplets continuously over a significant fraction of the world's oceanic surface, at a total rate of around 50 cubic metres per second.


Professor Stephen Salter has developed plans for a novel form of spray-droplet production (involving high-velocity propulsion of sea-water droplets), and has designed a wind-powered unmanned vessel which can be remotely guided to regions where cloud seeding is most favourable.

Instead of sails, these vessels use a much more efficient technique to power the yacht - Flettner rotors.

These spinning vertical cylinders mounted on the deck are named after their inventor, Anton Flettner. They also house the spraying system which sprays sea-water droplets from the top of the rotors.

The power required for spraying, communications and so on comes from electricity generated by turbines dragged along by the vessels.

We envisage that about 1,000 such vessels would be required to make the scheme effective.

Under control

The ideal solution to the global warming problem is that the burning of fossil fuels be drastically reduced.

But our scheme offers the possibility that we could buy time within which catastrophic warming could be staved off while carbon dioxide levels are being reduced to an acceptable degree.

One advantage of our plan is that it is ecologically benign; the only raw material required being sea-water.

The amount of cooling could be controlled, via satellite measurements and a computer model, and if an emergency arose, the system could be switched off, with conditions returning to normal within a few days.

In addition to global temperature stabilisation, we also envisage that the technique could be used to remedy more regional problems, such as the dying of the coral reefs as a result of ocean warming.

Long road ahead

But while it is all very well spraying the clouds, what effect will this have on the world's fragile eco-system, and do we have the right to interfere with the planet in this way?

Before we could justify deploying such a scheme on a global scale we would need to do several things.

We would have to complete the development of the required technology, and conduct a limited-area field experiment in which the reflectivity of seeded clouds is compared with that of adjacent unseeded ones.

We would also have to perform detailed analysis to establish whether there might be serious or harmful meteorological or climatological ramifications (such as reducing rainfall in regions where water is scarce) and, if so, to find a solution for them.

But bearing all this in mind, we have been encouraged by the consistent response we have received to our scheme - for example at a recent Nasa meeting - and it seems likely to be a strong contender in the fight to improve the current global warming problem worldwide.

When the planet is in such a dire situation, I am convinced it is simply irresponsible not to at least examine our options.

Professor John Latham is an atmospheric physicist at the University of Manchester & NCAR, Colorado, US. Professor Stephen Salter is an engineer at the University of Edinburgh.


Now why would there be all this chatter about geoengineering our way out of climate change, if this is simply about theorising about proposals that will never be acted on. All the open source info on geoengineering via Frankensteinian atmospheric shenanigans shows that there is a determination by crazed status-quoers to play God with the skies. It is simply cheaper for the fascists to go for the techno fixes rather than to fundamentally alter the shallow consumer societies with solar and other renewables. The astroturfing the last few years has intensified. What has been acknowledged as craziness except by government shills, now is being astroturfed as being viable options.

Want more evidence that the U.S. has already started to experiment with their Frankensteinian philosophies? I'll let Colin Powell do the talking.


So what did Colin Powell mean when he said the following?????

iht.com/articles/2002/09/05/a1_5.php
We are committed not just to rhetoric and to various goals, we are committed to a billion-dollar program to develop and deploy advanced technologies to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions.


He made that comment in September, 2002. It is now five years later, and one could argue that the last year saw a large increase in chemical trail sightings and stalled overcasts.

Finally, here is a link to an article written in 1997.
Climate Controls
If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world.
Gregory Benford | November 1997

{excerpt}
Although we are getting better and better at it, forecasting the weather is still remarkably tricky. Far easier to predict the political climate, especially when it comes to the issue of global warming. To wit: In December, negotiators from around the world will meet in Kyoto to work out an international treaty to deal with what most (though not all) scientists believe is a 0.5-degree-centigrade increase in temperatures over the past century, and the promise of more to come.

All major participants, including the U.S. representatives, will argue that the only way to address global warming is to reduce significantly levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are plausibly (though not definitively) linked to the rise in temperatures. Although a group of small island nations will suggest a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, members of the European Union will most likely carry the day with a plan to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide by at least 15 percent over the next decade.

The Clinton administration may object to those specific targets, but it will enthusiastically support the consensus that the only way to counter global warming is by reducing emissions. Indeed, the president announced in August that "we owe it to our children" to sign a treaty reducing consumption of greenhouse gases, a position echoed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who has called dissenters "un-American," and chief economic adviser Janet Yellen, who has called cost-benefit analyses of cutting greenhouse gases "futile."

Such thinking is perfectly in keeping with the universal environmentalist position, which is best understood as a starkly Puritan ethic: "Abstain, sinner!" "The only way to slow climate change is to use less fuel," asserts Bill McKibben in The End of Nature, a book that roundly condemns such luxuries as privately owned washing machines and oranges shipped to cold climates. And if a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gases seems extreme, consider that many ecologists champion far more costly conservation measures as the only solution. Ross Gelbspan's The Heat Is On even urges a government takeover of the energy sector and a massive propaganda campaign. In the wake of the Kyoto conference, expect to see calls for a Greenhouse Czar as global warming is brought to broad, persistent public notice.

Such hand wringing is as unimaginative as it is unequivocal. Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there may very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our dilemma. But the discussion of global warming never makes this clear; it seems designed to preclude any hint that we might remedy the situation except through great sacrifice, discomfort, and cost. Indeed, it seemingly assumes a direct relationship between the level of sacrifice, discomfort, and cost demanded by any proposed solution and its scientific efficacy. Solutions based on suppressing fuel use will cost us dearly, in terms of both dollars spent and standard of living. Economists differ over the price tag, with a rough analysis yielding an estimate of about $250 billion a year to reduce carbon dioxide emissions alone by 15 percent worldwide. (This number is easily debatable within a factor of two.) To this price we must add the cost of reducing other greenhouse gases, a cost felt not merely in our pocketbooks but also in the goods, services, and innovations whose production would be halted or forgone.

But for a number of reasons that I will discuss below, now is precisely the time to take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of consciously altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their reduction or outright prohibition. While such a notion may seem outlandish at first blush, it merely acknowledges explicitly what everyone already understands: that human activity has an impact on the planet...
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Don Smith » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:50 pm

allthingspass.com/uploads/doc-142Out Of The Blue Rev Aug_06.doc

Long report by Keith Harmon snow on weatherwars, environmental manipulation and a variety of related subjects.
One of the few studies I have found that does not make one reach for the tin foil hat.
Don Smith
 

Unread postby Don Smith » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:54 pm



One of a variety of clips exploring chemtrails, not all of which are absolutely trustworthy, I'm sure.
Still, each additional bit of information is a step forward in the awakening of society to this criminal activity.
Don Smith
 

Unread postby socrates » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:15 pm

Don Smith wrote:youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

One of a variety of clips exploring chemtrails, not all of which are absolutely trustworthy, I'm sure.
Still, each additional bit of information is a step forward in the awakening of society to this criminal activity.


Hi Don, thanks for the posts. I appreciate that you see the two sides to the operations, the military and the Dr. Evils. The Keith Harmon Snow pdf is good. Before we lost July, it seemed like we were really starting to focus in on authentic chemtrail truths. Maybe you could make another post about those weather modification bills that didn't get passed. Those to me seemed like attempts to legalise what is already going on. So I agree with you that chemtrails are illegal. They are illegal according to international law. Also, the magnitude of the operations, along with the astroturfing of this as being a hoax, shows that none of this is above board, that we are not a true democracy.

We had 17 visitors last night. Hopefully we can get people to sign up and help out. Hopefully, the audience can see we are for real, and that we are trying to back our claims with proof. So this is an open request to the readers to please be patient as we try to get back on track, and please sign up and contribute what you can.

Repeat: There are no sylphs, no black helicopters coming after any of us, there is no need to buy a chembuster or read posts by Halva, Jay Reynolds, Weatherman714, Tinfoil1776, Jeannie, Ellyn, Deborah/Foot Soldier, Chem11, Big Bunny, or any posts being made by those making chemtrails look kooky. We know what we are seeing. We know those trails aren't contrails. We know they are not on normal flight paths. We know clear blue sky does not have the humidity needed for the creation of the white-outs.

Chemtrails are all about contrail generation, the creation of fake clouds. Chemtrails are not a matter of faith. We see them with our own eyes. And we see the criss-crosses, the crazy bent horseshoe designs.

There is no population culling going on. Detrimental health effects are a side effect from the actions of these bastards. I believe that there are records kept, that somehow this is all "legal." But Gonzales made torture "legal." Shrub made illegal domestic spying "legal."

We all need to step up to the plate and get it out to the masses that widespread weather modification has been going on for close to ten years. We all need to visualize the congressional hearings for this. We need to not only visualize, we need to keep pestering the media, the politicians, the meteorologists, basically anyone and everyone needs to know about this.

We can get this done if we start networking better together and come up with real strategies to get this bullshit exposed and stopped.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

THE NOAA, THE FRANKENSCIENTISTS, AND THE MILITARY

Unread postby socrates » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:13 pm

So the question remains, what exactly is going on above our heads? I'll do some more copying and pasting. The reader should be able to read between the lines. The bottom line is that all three of those entities and others have overlapping intentions.

livescience.com/environment/051003_weather_control.html
{excerpts}

Schemes to Control the Weather Clouded by Failure
By Robin Lloyd, Special to LiveScience
posted: 03 October 2005 11:12 am ET

Scientists agree they can't totally control the weather. But some experts think they can tame it a bit.

Schemes are wide-ranging, with proposals to throttle everything from fog to global warming. Results have been mixed and the controversy constant...

One idea floated a few years back was to beam microwave energy from a satellite to disrupt the convection that drives a tornado. Another idea that remains alive after decades of research is cloud-seeding to increase or decrease rain, fog or hail in certain locations...

Joanne Simpson, a UCLA professor who later worked for the National Weather Bureau (which became NOAA), was the first person to develop a computer model for cloud behavior. She went on to investigate cloud seeding to test her models and to try to reduce the strength of hurricanes. Though she had successes, the overall results were inconclusive and the projects fizzled.

Image
Joanne Simpson predicted in the 1960s that seeding a cloud would cause it to double in height. She bootlegged aircraft time during Project Stormfury, a weather modification experiment started in 1961 by her future husband, Bob Simpson. She flew above clouds and ejected flares that ignited and created silver iodide smoke. The clouds behaved just as her computer model predicted.
IMAGE: NOAA


...A 2003 report published by the National Research Council (NRC) put a damper on the idea of weather modification, saying there was no convincing scientific proof that cloud seeding works.

The Weather Modification Association (WMA) differs, saying the NRC's standard for proof was so high that the same standard would disprove global warming, humans' less intentional weather modification effort.

(A far-out scheme to slow global warming has also been proposed. It involves ringing Earth with tiny satellites to shade the planet.) ...

But many scientists think research dollars are better spent on improved storm preparation and reaction plans.

"My research is grounded in the practical application of science and logic, which tells me it is far better to work with nature rather than trying to control or to change her," Clemson University civil engineer David Prevatt told LiveScience.

Extreme weather is inevitable, Prevatt says, and our best bet is to use science and engineering to study extreme winds and floods, to predict the consequences, and to focus on more weather-resistant buildings and levees and smart development policy.



I found this next one by googling the following search terms:
"solar management radiative forcing experiments"

Atmospheric Science Program {ASP}
{excerpts}

Welcome to the ASP website!


The Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program has as its long-term goal developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter. The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change...


Atmospheric Science Program

The Office of Biological and Environmental Research of the Office of Science (SC), U.S. Department of Energy, hereby announces its interest in receiving applications for research grants in experimental and theoretical studies of aerosol radiative forcing of climate in conjunction with the Atmospheric Science Program in the Climate Change Research Division as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Background

Understanding the role of aerosols in climate forcing is a critical factor in climate change research, as well as an essential element in advancing the state of the art in climate modeling. Aerosol forcing appears to be the same order of magnitude as the forcing from greenhouse gases, but far more uncertain. Aerosol forcing has two major components, direct and indirect. Direct effects of aerosols are the influence of the aerosols on the Earth's radiation balance due to the scattering and absorption of radiation by particles in clear (cloud-free) air. Indirect effects of aerosols include their influence on the radiation balance and hydrology through their impact on cloud microphysical properties (first indirect effect) and amount (second indirect effect). There is also a semi-direct effect, in which the heating by aerosol particles due to absorption of solar radiation decreases cloud amount...

Representing aerosol processes in global climate models

A paper entitled "Aerosol Properties and Processes: A Path from Field and Laboratory Measurements to Global Climate Models" by Steve Ghan and Steve Schwartz is in press for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The paper describes the strategy of DOE for improving representation of the properties, processes, and effects of tropospheric aerosols in global climate models. The strategy begins with a foundation of field and laboratory measurements that provide the basis for modules describing specific aerosol properties and processes.


I admit that this next one is a tough read, but it just shows that these creeps are doing a lot of tinkering up there.

"They" Refer to it as "Dispersion," not spraying

Nighttime aerosol dispersion...Elastic backscatter lidar measurements of aerosol plumes have been used in to quantify the effects of nocturnal planetary boundary layer structure, dynamics, turbulence, and wave structures on plume dispersion. In conjunction with lidar measurements of a continuous source aerosol plume, simultaneous micrometeorological measurements were made. Techniques for determining plume dispersion parameters, plume concentration and plume meander have been developed to help merge the lidar and micrometeorological measurements. This will allow for a more complete understanding of turbulence and wave structures. The details of these new lidar techniques as well as initial results of the joint study will be presented.





This next link is proof that "they" are already messing around in the upper atmosphere with chemical trails.

The HEX Experiment

The HEX experiment: Determination of the neutral wind field from 120 to 185 km altitude near a stable premidnight auroral arc by triangulating the drift of rocket-deployed chemical trails

Abstract

On 25 March 2003, Horizontal E-Region Experiment (HEX) released trimethyl aluminum trails from two rockets launched northward from Poker Flat Research Range near Fairbanks to map the vertical wind field near a stable premidnight auroral arc system. They deployed three trails of trimethyl aluminum chemical “puffs,” whose subsequent motion traced the prevailing wind field. This motion was determined using triangulation from four ground observation sites.


Friggin' lunatics
:evil:



RAF rainmakers 'caused 1952 flood'

Unearthed documents suggest experiment triggered torrent that killed 35 in Devon disaster

John Vidal and Helen Weinstein
Thursday August 30, 2001
The Guardian

On August 15, 1952, one of the worst flash floods ever to have occurred in Britain swept through the Devon village of Lynmouth. Thirty five people died as a torrent of 90m tons of water and thousands of tons of rock poured off saturated Exmoor and into the village destroying homes, bridges, shops and hotels.

The disaster was officially termed "the hand of God" but new evidence from previously classified government files suggests that a team of international scientists working with the RAF was experimenting with artificial rainmaking in southern Britain in the same week and could possibly be implicated.

Squadron Leader Len Otley, who was working on what was known as Operation Cumulus, has told the BBC that they jokingly referred to the rainmaking exercise as Operation Witch Doctor.

His navigator, Group Captain John Hart, remembers the success of these early experiments: "We flew straight through the top of the cloud, poured dry ice down into the cloud. We flew down to see if any rain came out of the cloud. And it did about 30 minutes later, and we all cheered."

The meteorological office has in the past denied there were any rainmaking experiments conducted before 1955, but a BBC Radio 4 history investigation, to be broadcast tonight, has unearthed documents recently released at the public record office showing that they were going on from 1949 to 1955. RAF logbooks and personnel corroborate the evidence.

Until now, the Ministry of Defence has categorically denied knowledge of any cloud-seeding experiments taking place in the UK during early August 1952. But documents suggest that Operation Cumulus was going on between August 4 and August 15 1952. The scientists were based at Cranfield school of aeronautics and worked in collaboration with the RAF and the MoD's meteorological research flight based at Farnborough. The chemicals were provided by ICI in Billingham.

Met office reports from these dates describe flights undertaken to collect data on cumulus cloud temperature, water content, icing rate, vertical motions and turbulence, and water droplet and ice crystal formation. There is no mention of cloud seeding.

But a 50-year-old radio broadcast unearthed by Radio 4 describes an aeronautical engineer and glider pilot, Alan Yates, working with Operation Cumulus at the time and flying over Bedfordshire, spraying quantities of salt. He was elated when the scientists told him this had led to a heavy downpour 50 miles away over Staines, in Middlesex.

"I was told that the rain had been the heaviest for several years - and all out of a sky which looked summery ... there was no disguising the fact that the seedsman had said he'd make it rain, and he did. Toasts were drunk to meteorology and it was not until the BBC news bulletin [about Lynmouth] was read later on, that a stony silence fell on the company," said Mr Yates at the time.

Operation Cumulus was put on hold indefinitely after the tragedy.

Declassified minutes from an air ministry meeting, held in the war office on November 3, 1953, show why the military were interested in increasing rain and snow by artificial means. The list of possible uses included "bogging down enemy movement", "incrementing the water flow in rivers and streams to hinder or stop enemy crossings", and clearing fog from airfields.

The documents also talk of rainmaking having a potential "to explode an atomic weapon in a seeded storm system or cloud. This would produce a far wider area of radioactive contamination than in a normal atomic explosion".

UK weather modification experiments at the time presaged current practice in the US. The idea was to target "super cool" clouds, and to increase the volume of freezing water vapour particles. Most methods involved firing particles of salt, dry ice, or silver iodide, into clouds, either from an aeroplane or from burners on the ground. The clouds would then precipitate, pulled down below freezing point by the extra weight of dense particles, thus making it rain sooner and heavier than it might have done. Significantly, it was claimed that silver iodide could cause a downpour up to 300 miles away.

Many countries now use the technology, which has considerably improved during the past 50 years.

But controversy still surrounds the efficacy of these early cloud-seeding experiments. In 1955 questions were asked in the Commons about the possibilites of liability and compensation claims. Documents seen by the BBC suggest that both the air ministry and the Treasury became very anxious and were aware that rainmaking could cause damage, not just to military targets and personnel, but also to civilians.

The British Geological Survey has recently examined soil sediments in the district of Lynmouth to see if any silver or iodide residues remain. The testing has been limited due to restrictions in place because of foot and mouth disease, and it is inconclusive. However, silver residue has been discovered in the catchment waters of the river Lyn. The BGS will investigate further over the next 18 months.

Survivors of the Lynmouth flood called for - but never got - a full investigation into the causes of the disaster. Rumours persist to this day of planes circling before the inundation.





The Boston Globe
Don't like the weather? Change it
The weird science of weather modification makes a comeback

Image
GLOBAL COOLING: To counteract global warming, John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research has proposed a system of enormous eggbeater-like turbines that would stir up seawater, thickening the cloud cover to reflect more of the sun's energy back into space. (Photo / Stephen Salter)

By Drake Bennett | July 3, 2005

In the summer of 1930, George Ambrosius Immanuel Morrison Sykes, a self-professed ''minister of Zoroastrianism" and flat-earther (his calculations put the sun's distance from Earth at 3,300 miles), was hired by the Westchester Racing Association to ensure good weather for the horse races at Belmont Park. As described by historian Clark C. Spence in ''The Rainmakers" (1980), the contract promised Sykes $1,000 for every dry day during a week in early September, but required him to pay back twice that for every wet one.

For seven days Sykes's device--a jalopic pile of wire, antennae, jars of colored water, old radio sets, a vase, an electric heater and a toy propeller--was blessed by sun. But the following Saturday, after his contract was extended, the rains came. And when Sykes, looking to outwit fate, promised more rain two days later, the appointed day instead passed dry.

At press time, the National Weather Service was predicting a sunny July 4th in Boston, with temperatures in the low 80s. Still, it would be nice to be sure, wouldn't it? Seventy-five years after Doc Sykes's Belmost lucky streak ended in disgrace, the weather still resists our best efforts at prediction, much less control.

Not that this has stopped us from trying. Recent years have seen a growing interest not merely in forecasting, but in the seemingly fanciful prospect of customizing the weather. In 2003 the National Academy of Sciences recommended ''a coordinated national program" to ''conduct a sustained research effort" into weather modification. Politicians in Western and Southwestern states are funding attempts to tickle more moisture out of the clouds, and this March, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas introduced a bill to create a national Weather Modification Operations and Research Board.

Last fall, a meteorologist named Ross Hoffman suggested in Scientific American that a network of microwave-beaming satellites could literally take the wind out of hurricanes. In some of the driest parts of Mexico, a Bedford-based company called Ionogenics is testing a rainmaking apparatus that uses an array of steel poles to ionize the air. China, a country with widespread cloud seeding, has announced plans to engineer clear weather in Beijing for the 2008 Olympics.

Meanwhile, deepening concern over the possibly cataclysmic effects of climate change has spurred a number of recent proposals, some sketched out in considerable detail, to engineer a measure of counteractive cooling. John Latham, an atmospheric physicist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., has proposed increasing the reflectivity of the cloud cover by stirring up water vapor from the ocean with a fleet of giant egg-beater-like turbines. A few years ago, a team led by the late Edward Teller suggested creating a similar effect by launching a million tons of tiny aluminum balloons into the atmosphere. The Teller team also revived a proposal, last explored in the early 1990s, to build an adjustable 2,000-kilometer-wide mirror in space to deflect some of the sun's energy before it reaches us.

To be sure, within the meteorological establishment the enthusiasm for weather modification is far from universal. And climate engineering--the alteration of global, rather than local, weather systems--remains purely theoretical. Still, after decades of disfavor, such ideas are getting a second look. As our ability to comprehend the weather improves and as the threat of climate change looms larger, some scientists are ready to brave the uncertainty and tangled ethics of tinkering with the skies.

. . .

In 1946, over Mount Greylock in western Massachusetts, a General Electric research chemist named Vincent Schaefer scattered three pounds of crushed dry ice out of an airplane into a cloud and set off a snow flurry. It was the world's first successful cloud seeding--later that year, the meteorologist Bernard Vonnegut (brother to the novelist) discovered that silver iodide smoke had a similar effect--and weather modification emerged from the realm of con men and eccentrics. Most meteorologists remained skeptical, but by 1951, 10 percent of the United States was under commercial cloud seeding. ''Intervention in atmospheric and climatic matters on any desired scale" was only decades away, predicted John von Neumann, the mathematician who helped invent and began programming the first electronic computers to model the weather.

Over the next 30 years, the federal government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects all over the country to increase precipitation, to mitigate hailstorms (an age-old enemy of farmers), and, most successfully, to clear the fog from around airports. Perhaps the era's most ambitious endeavor was Project Stormfury, which sent up airplanes to seed the eye walls of hurricanes with silver iodide to weaken the winds before landfall.

The US military, unsurprisingly, was intrigued by the possibility of a godlike meteorological arsenal. According to Spencer Weart, a physicist and historian of science at the American Institute of Physics, the thinking in the Defense Department was ''maybe we'll give the Russians a real Cold War, or maybe they'll give us one, so we should be ready." Pentagon money funded much of the era's climate research, helping to create the weather models we now use in forecasting. War gamers dreamed up climatological warfare scenarios like laying down a blanket of fog over an airfield or visiting drought upon an enemy's breadbasket.

One plan even made it off the drawing board. From 1966 to 1972, under the code name Project Popeye, the US Air Force flew thousands of cloud-seeding sorties over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, hoping to muddy it into impassability. (While there's some evidence that rain did increase, it's unclear what difference this made on the ground.) When the details of the plan surfaced in the press, the public outcry led to an international treaty banning ''Military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques."

But the grandest climate engineering schemes came from the Soviet Union. The most Promethean among them was a late 1950s proposal to dam the Bering Strait and, by pumping water from the Arctic Ocean into the Pacific, draw warm water northward from the Atlantic to melt the polar ice pack, making the Arctic Ocean navigable and warming Siberia. The leading Soviet climatologist, Mikhail I. Budyko, cautioned against it, arguing that the ultimate effects were too difficult to predict (though he himself had played with the idea of warming the Arctic by covering it in soot to decrease its reflectivity). John F. Kennedy, as a presidential candidate, suggested the United States look into collaborating on the project.

While the two countries continued desultory discussions of the Bering Strait plan into the 1970s, the American government was by then losing interest in the whole field of weather modification. After years of increases, federal research money was cut sharply in 1973. Commercial cloud seeding continued, and a few states maintained their own cloud seeding programs, but over the next decade federal research funding effectively dropped to zero.

The problem, in part, was that there was no consensus on the efficacy of cloud seeding, the focus of almost all research up to that point. Study after study had been inconclusive. ''The government had put a lot of money into it and they hadn't been able to prove a damn thing," says Weart.

The change in the political climate, however, wasn't simply the result of scientific failures. Chunglin Kwa, a historian of science at the University of Amsterdam and one of the few scholars to study the history of weather modification in depth, writes that, when it fell out of public favor, the field had ''existed for most of its history with little clear evidence that rainmaking and hurricane abatement worked, but there was equally little clear evidence that it did not." Many meteorologists, he notes, argued that research deserved further funding.

What had changed, Kwa argues, were attitudes, especially American ones, about technology, risk, and nature. ''There was the development of an attitude to not mess with Mother Nature," he said in an interview. With the growth of the environmental movement in the 1970s and 1980s came a conviction that human beings were foolishly tempting fate by trying to impose their will on nature, whether by damming up rivers or tapping the clouds. Environmentalists enlisted mounting signs of our unintentional weather modification--clear-cutting forests, for example, decreases rainfall, while smokestacks increase it--to argue that humanity was already disrupting the balance of nature.

The threat, in other words, wasn't that weather modification would fail but that it would work--a concern that still shapes the debate. ''There's a real sense that the climate system is complicated enough that if you start messing around with it you're likely to get an outcome you didn't expect," says Edward Boyle, a professor of ocean geochemistry at MIT.

Critics point to our inability to understand even local cloud systems. In 1972, a government cloud-seeding run in South Dakota was followed by a violent deluge, and more than 200 people were killed in the ensuing flood. Meteorologists disagreed over whether seeding was to blame, but the incident became an ominous symbol for those who saw weather modifiers as latter-day Pandoras.

. . .

Boyle's caution may be merited, but scientists are better equipped today to understand and manipulate the weather than they were 30 years ago. Roelof Bruintjes of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading cloud seeding researcher, says that new radar and sensor technologies, better satellite imaging, and ever-increasing computer power have greatly aided his work. Today, he says, ''We have new tools to get the basic answers that we couldn't get in the '70s, '80s and '90s."

Some scientists and engineers, such as Daniel Schrag, director of Harvard's Laboratory for Geochemical Oceanography, point out that, in light of the planet's growing thirst and rising temperature, even Soviet-scale climate modification is attracting real consideration. Boyle, who spoke at a joint MIT-Cambridge University conference on the topic last year, readily concedes, ''There are very prominent, serious scientists who are considering these things."

Such projects are inevitably presented as last-ditch protections against an existential threat, but they nevertheless raise the issue of what it would mean to take a more active role in shaping the weather--not merely in the face of catastrophe but as a means of lengthening the growing season, making rainfall more regular, or blunting heat waves.

Pop-up GLOBE GRAPHIC: Strange weather
Message Board YOUR VIEW: Is it foolish and dangerous for humans to tinker with the skies?

But controlling the weather, like controlling our genes, creates a thicket of ethical thorns. For one thing, despite the international ban, reliable weather modification could end up being weaponized. A 1996 Air Force report entitled ''Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025," argued that ''the tremendous military capabilities that could result from this field are ignored at our own peril."

Even purely peaceful aims would lead to a cascade of seemingly zero-sum conflicts. In the US, cloud seeding has set off several lawsuits in which, for example, downwind farmers have accused a cloud-seeding neighbor of ''stealing" their rain. Such issues only grow in complexity along with the scale. Ideal weather for a farm isn't necessarily ideal for a resort. (In 1950, the owner of an upstate country club unsuccessfully sued New York City over its attempt to alleviate a drought through cloud-seeding.) What once was, in insurance parlance, an ''act of God" becomes something for which one can assign blame.

For climate modification's more eager supporters, such worries are premature. According to Joe Kaplinsky, a technology analyst in London, ''To raise these things before the technology has really gotten off the ground is to deprive us of the potential benefits of any technology, because any technology can be misused."

''Of course some people will benefit and some people will lose," Kaplinsky says, ''but there are social mechanisms for solving disagreements, either through compensation or through democratic debate." If a new technology provides a ''net gain," he says, ''the losers can be compensated. And it's very clear that there's a tremendous potential here for managing weather systems in a way that would create tremendous net gain."

Some of the calculations, though, would verge on the Solomonic. Suppose we could control hurricanes, posits Harvard's Schrag, ''but stopping one requires an incredibly hot day in Africa that would burn up all the crops. You've got one hell of a moral dilemma there."

''Let's say you have a mirror in space," he goes on. ''Think of two summers ago when we were having this awful cold summer and Europe was having this awful heat wave. Who gets to adjust the mirror?"

Drake Bennett is the staff writer for Ideas. E-mail drbennett@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.





Chinese FrankenScientists
Greater China
Jul 13, 2007


Ready, aim, fire and rain
By Pallavi Aiyar

BEIJING - After weeks of watching the mercury soar, hardening the already cracked earth of their wilting orchards and farms, a group of farmers on the outskirts of Beijing gather in the Fragrant Hills that line the western fringe of China's capital city. Unlike their ancestors, they do not assemble to perform a rain dance or gather in a temple to pray to the Lord Buddha to bring the rain.

Instead, they grab rocket launchers and a 37-millimeter anti-aircraft gun and begin shooting into the sky. What they launch are not bullets or missiles but chemical pellets. Their targets are not enemy aggressors but wisps of passing cloud that they aim to "seed" with silver-iodide particles around which moisture can then collect and become heavy enough to fall.

The farmers are part of the biggest rain-making force in the world: China's Weather Modification Program.

According to Wang Guanghe, director of the Weather Modification Department under the Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences, each of China's more than 30 provinces and province-level municipalities today boast a weather-modification base, employing more than 32,000 people, 7,100 anti-aircraft guns, 4,991 special rocket launchers and 30-odd aircraft across the country.

"Ours is the largest artificial weather program in the world in terms of equipment, size and budget," Wang said, adding that the annual nationwide budget for weather modification is between US$60 million and $90 million.

It is no coincidence that the world's biggest such project is in China. The country's leadership has never been cautious about harnessing nature, taking on a slew of what were once thought impossible engineering challenges, such as the Three Gorges dam, the world's biggest hydroelectric project, and the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, the world's longest highland railroad.

For a largely agrarian country like China, the weather was thought of as far too important to be left to the whim of gods or nature. As a result, Chinese scientists began researching man-made rain as far back as 1958, using chemicals such as silver iodide or dry ice to facilitate condensation in moisture-laden clouds.

In the beginning, the idea was to ease drought and improve harvests for Chinese farmers, but over the decades other functions have evolved such as firefighting, prevention of hailstorms, and replenishment of river heads and reservoirs. Artificial rain has also been used by some provinces to combat drought and sandstorms. In 2004, Shanghai decided to induce rain simply to lower the temperature during a prolonged heat wave to bring relief to an increasingly hot and sweaty urban populace.

And now China's weather officials have been charged with another important task: ensuring clear skies for the Summer Olympic Games next year.

Zhang Qiang, the top weather-modification bureaucrat in Beijing, said her office has been conducting experiments in cloud-busting for the past two years in preparation for the Games' opening ceremony on August 8, 2008.

She said that according to past meteorological data, there is a 50% chance of drizzle on that day. To ensure blue skies, the Beijing Weather Modification Office is busy researching the effects of various chemical activators on different sizes of cloud formations at different altitudes. The aim is to catch pregnant clouds early and induce rainfall ahead of the big day so that during the opening ceremony the sky is cloud-free.

Wang said similar efforts in the past have already helped to create good weather for a number of international events held in China, including the 1999 World Horti-Expo in Yunnan and the 1993 East Asian Games in Shanghai.

However, Zhang warned that her cloud-fighters will only be effective in the event of the threat of a drizzle: "A heavy downpour will be impossible to combat."

Her caveat goes to the heart of the primary criticism leveled against weather-modification efforts worldwide: doubts about their effectiveness. Wang himself admits that it remains notoriously difficult to establish how much real impact cloud-seeding has, since there is no foolproof way to establish how much rain might have fallen without intervention.

The United States, which pioneered cloud-seeding techniques in the 1940s and 1950s, has long cooled in its enthusiasm for the science behind artificial rain. However, Israel and Russia continue to have substantial weather-modification programs and Wang said experiments conducted in these countries reveal that cloud-seeding can increase rainfall by between 6% and 20%.

Zhang said reservoirs in Beijing have shown an increase of 10-13%, one directly attributable to the efforts of her rainmakers.

Despite some international skepticism, the Chinese authorities remain convinced of the merits of attempting to alter weather. China's state news agency Xinhua recently reported that between 1999 and 2006, 250 billion tonnes of rain was artificially created, enough to fill the Yellow River several times over. Moreover, China's 11th Five Year Plan, which kicked off last year, calls for the creation of about 50 billion cubic meters of artificial rain annually.

While declining to provide specifics, Zhang said her office's budget has seen sharp spikes in recent years and she expects it to continue to grow given northern China's extreme water shortages, which are exacerbated by the impact of climate change. Indeed, the annual per capita water supply for China is only 2,200 cubic meters, just 25% of the global average, according to the World Bank.

Artificial rain, however, is not controversy-free even within China. City dwellers have raised concerns about environmental pollution, though both Wang and Zhang insist that silver iodide is used in such tiny quantities that it brings no negative health consequences. Cloud-seeding shells and rockets have also sometimes gone astray, damaging homes and injuring inhabitants. Only last year a passer-by in the municipality of Chongqing was killed by part of a rain cannon that flew off during firing in May.

Wang says training programs and licenses have sharply curbed accidents in recent years, and the 135 farmers who comprise the on-call rainmaking force in Beijing go through intensive training, lasting several weeks, before they are let loose on the artillery. The farmers are paid about US$100 a month for their cannon and rocket-launching duties, which they perform about 40 times a year.

The person who gives the shooters the green signal to launch their cloud attacks is none other than Zhang, China's modern-day equivalent of Zeus, Indra, or the Chinese rain god Xuantian Shangdi. However, the businesslike bureaucrat is modest when it comes to describing her role: "We try our best, but there are no guarantees of success."

Could the rain gods have claimed differently?

Pallavi Aiyar is the China correspondent for The Hindu.

(Copyright 2007 Pallavi Aiyar.)
Last edited by socrates on Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

CHEMTRAILS SEEM TO BE LEGAL

Unread postby socrates » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:16 pm

They may be legal somehow. There seems to be no other explanation for how any of this is going on. I think that the main culprits are the NOAA, the military, and the Frankenscientists. Now, I have written before how Alberto Gonzales made torture "legal." Just because something may be legal, it doesn't make it right, or hide the truth that such activities should be outlawed completely. This is why we are being astroturfed that chemtrails are kooky. It's so we end up on websites full of disinfo and shrug our heads, get discouraged.

Here is a fairly long copy and paste job. I do not expect anyone to read every word I post or link to. I am trying to just present an alternative explanation for "chemtrails" that makes the most sense. No one should have to go seeking for needles in haystacks. No one should have to read bullshit about orgone chembusters or about Jay Reynolds "narcissistic personality disorder." The truth is out there. We just need to figure out how to stop running around in circles about shit that just doesn't matter. Apologies in advance if the script comes out a bit off. I find that when I copy and paste some of these cached pdf's, no matter what one does, it doesn't come out the same on the page as it is at the link. I am copying it in full because it pertains to testimony given about one of those crazy weather modification bills that didn't get passed. After this, I have some more links I will put up on this post. Again, I do not expect people to read everything on this forum. There is such a thing as the scroll button. We are all individuals who have our own methods for figuring crap out. I am simply trying my best as one chemtrail blogger to shed light on chemtrail realities.

TESTIMONY BY DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN

TESTIMONY BY DR. JOSEPH H. GOLDEN BEFORE JOINT HEARING BY SEN. SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE & SPACE AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREDICTION & PREVENTION, NOVEMBER 10, 2005:

I am honored to appear before you today in regards to Senate Bill S.517, the Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005. My name is Dr. Joseph H. Golden, retired from NOAA on September 2, 2005 after 41.5 years of Federal service in NOAA, both in severe weather research and NWS operations. I now work part-time as a Senior Research Scientist in the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) in Boulder,CO. My background in weather modification research relates to the fact that I was the last NOAA manager of the Atmospheric Modification Program (AMP) in NOAA Research, until its termination by the Congress in l995. I was never asked by anyone to defend the AMP Program, based on its merits and accomplishments. The AMP program was written into NOAA’s budget by the Congress for many years, beginning in the late 1970’s. I view the AMP program and its research productivity as a highlight of my NOAA career, especially due to the cooperative efforts among the six States in the program (Illinois, No. Dakota, Texas, Utah, Nevada and Arizona), the universities, private-sector operators, and NOAA research. None of the NOAA AMP funds were used to conduct any operational cloud seeding, and I feel that, at this time, funding under S517 should also not be used for operational cloud seeding efforts. I am pleased to see my colleague, George Bomar here from Texas: he was one of the State program managers in AMP, and his State was the first to utilize NWS NEXRAD Doppler radar data to estimate the rainfall increases from seeding convective clouds. One of my greatest career frustrations has been witnessing the adoption of new research results and technologies we developed under AMP by other countries, while Federal research and technology transfer in my own country has largely stagnated. For example, a chemical tracer technique developed by the Nevada-AMP program to quantify the amount of snow increase due to seeding over mountains is now being used by a new cloud seeding program in Australia. In China alone, their government is funding a greatly-expanded weather modification research and operations program at $100 million per year, as well as training over 1500 new weather modification scientists.

In the limited time I speak before you today, I want to address two types of natural disasters, and the potential for planned weather modification to alleviate them: slow-onset disasters over many years, such as the continuing drought in the West, and the quick-onset disasters such as the record-breaking Atlantic hurricane season this year and the massive Oklahoma City tornado outbreak of May, l999.

Federal funding for weather modification research in the U.S. reached its pinnacle in the l970’s and early l980’s, and has steadily declined ever since. During its heyday, weather modification research in the U.S. was at the cutting edge of worldwide efforts. For example, NOAA conducted large-scale seeding experiments in South Florida (called FACE) and collaborated with the Navy and university scientists in Project STORMFURY, to weaken hurricanes. I participated in STORMFURY while a PhD candidate, and found it to be one of most exhilarating experiences of my career. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) also organized the National Hail Research Experiment, which attempted to test the validity of the Russian approach to artificially reduce hail by cloud seeding. Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation carried out the High Plains experiment, to seed convective clouds for rainfall increases over the Central U.S. While each of these programs, in my opinion, produced outstanding scientific results and new operational insights, they produced results that were inconclusive insofar as statistical evaluation is concerned. Nevertheless, I feel that our community was a good steward and used limited funding very wisely. I am also convinced that the atmospheric sciences have come a long way during the intervening years. The scientific foundation and underlying physics in purposeful weather modification, i.e., cloud seeding, is sound and well-established. We now have both the science and the technology to launch a new research attack on some of these other vexing problems.

The need for a renewed national commitment and funding for weather modification research has become more urgent. In recent years, we have seen severe drought in my home State of Colorado and the Pacific Northwest. New research results show unmistakable impacts of air pollution in reducing seasonal precipitation over mountainous areas of the Western U.S. during the past several decades. Pollution is systematically robbing the Western mountains of winter snowpack, and if the process continues, will lead to major losses of runoff water for hydroelectric power and agricultural crop productivity. However, research in Israel has demonstrated that their long-term cloud seeding programs have offset similar pollution-induced rainfall losses in their country. The new research has also developed new analysis techniques with NOAA satellite data to objectively identify and separate pollution episodes from affected neighboring clouds. The pollution effects on natural precipitation in our country and elsewhere is certainly a critical research issue for this Bill. Another issue needing more research attention is the question of extra-area effects: if we seed cloud systems in one area, and successfully produce increases of precipitation there, are we “robbing Peter to pay Paul” in downwind locations? Results supported by AMP suggested the answer is no, and that there is either no effect downwind, or a slight increase in precipitation.

Another weather modification research issue, and one that always elicits scientific controversy, is severe storms modification. This issue was not addressed much in the NAS/NRC weather modification report chaired by my distinguished colleague, Michael Garstang. These are the quick-onset disasters of which I spoke earlier, and include hailstorms, tornadoes and hurricanes like KATRINA and RITA this year. I should emphasize that AMP supported some outstanding hail modification research with the North Dakota Cloud Modification Program. This operational program is one of the longest-running hail suppression programs in the world. Positive results on the impact of cloud-seeding to reduce hail damage to crops, using insurance companies’ records of crop-loss ratios, were so impressive, that the Canadian insurance industry has supported a new multi-year effort in the province of Alberta, Canada to protect its largest cities from hail. The Alberta hail-suppression program uses many of the techniques that we used in the AMP-North Dakota program.

After the horrendous devastation and loss of life from Hurricanes KATRINA and RITA, I have been asked several times about the possibilility of hurricane modification. And while I don’t have the time to fully address this issue today, I firmly believe that we are in a much better position, both with the science and the undergirding technology, than we were when Project STORMFURY was terminated in 1982. We now understand that both tornadoes and hurricanes exhibit a life-cycle, and both exhibit natural instabilities during their lifetimes. The key atmospheric condition leading to the decay of both destructive vortices is cooler, drier air, as well as cooling sea surface conditions for decaying hurricanes. Recent observational and modeling studies both suggest that there may be new approaches possible for future weakening or track-diversion of hurricanes threatening our shoreline. The key uncertainty, and one which requires enhanced observations, is more continuous and accurate monitoring of the natural fluctuations in hurricane intensity and path. For example, WILMA intensified in the western Caribbean overnight from a Category 1 to a Category 5 hurricane, resulting in the lowest pressure ever measured in the eye of an Atlantic-basin hurricane. There are now some very exciting computer models that reproduce both hurricane intensification and tornado behavior in remarkable detail. If we mount a sustained, adequately-funded national program of weather modification research and technology transfer, I believe that it may also be possible to successfully weaken tornadoes (or, alternatively, shorten their life-cycles). I would be pleased to elaborate details on promising approaches and testable hypotheses for tornado/hurricane amelioration at some future time. I am presently collaborating with colleagues, Drs. Rosenfeld and Woodley, in testing a new technique for identifying storm systems with high threat of producing tornadoes. This technique utilizes NOAA satellite data at various wavelengths and shows promise in improving NWS lead-times for tornado watches and warnings.

Even after the demise of the AMP Program in l995, operational weather modification programs have continued to expand and flourish in the U.S. This is reflected in the annual reports of all such projects to NOAA, as required by law. Most of these projects are supported by the States, utilities or the private-sector. One of my private-sector colleagues recently noted his estimate of total annual expenditures in the U.S. of $25-30 million for weather modification operational projects. There is now very little Federally-supporting research to aid these operational programs in evaluation, or improving their technological base. We have some of the best cutting-edge science in NOAA research, NCAR and the universities that can help the private weather modification operators improve their evaluation of seeding effects, as well as improved targeting of seeding materials in suitable cloud systems. I like the idea of establishing the Weather Modification Advisory Board, with broad representation, which is needed to set the national agenda and priorities for these and other urgent water management issues facing the country. I have many close scientific colleagues in NOAA weather research who would welcome the opportunity to contribute to a reinvigorated national program of weather modification research and technology transfer, if support can be found. In fact, our Boulder laboratories won a Department of Commerce Gold Medal for our contributions to the recently-completed NWS Modernization and AWIPS computer workstations. I am one who has long believed, that to be successful in any form of purposeful weather modification, we must first do a very good job of predicting the natural phenomena.

In closing, I want to assure you that the U.S. has the technology and the best and brightest scientists who would welcome the opportunity to reinvigorate the weather modification field. These are very challenging issues and the worsening water crisis in the West and elsewhere demand our urgent attention.



The following youtube video needn't be seen in its entirety. It appears to be from a local access tv show in New Hampshire by "libertarians." While both hosts say that they do not believe in "chemtrails," they take aim at a law which exists in NH that makes weather modification legal. As libertarians, they make the argument that such a law is crazy and adds to the bureaucracy, and should be wiped off the books. One needs to go to around 5 minutes, 20 seconds, to hear about this. I'll try to make a quick transcript of what is said to make it easier for the readers.

Free Minds TV July 20, 2007 (Episode 30)


This one is a little bit surprising. And I didn't think any law like this would exist, at least on the state level. It deals with weather modification experimentation. And it's pretty brief, so I'm gonna read it for you, just so the viewers know exactly what it says.

Any department or agency of the state may, with the approval of the Governor and Council, and within the limits of appropriated funds, or by means of gifts, donations, or grants, engage and undertake in experimentation and the techniques and methods for weather modification, and may cooperate therein with the federal government, with agencies of other states and other interested persons and organisations. This law took effect July 1st, 1985.


So here we have two people cycnical about the existence of chemtrails, but they still are our allies, in that they want this law wiped off the books. They even mention that such a bill gives credence to our "conspiracy theory."



I found one video by some actual cloud seeders. What this next one shows is that chemtrails, while they do kind of fit in with the overall definition of cloud seeding, are something with vast difference3s. The blokes on this video use flares with the silver iodide, there are no "contrails" involved. The silver iodide basically attaches to the nuclei particles and the moisture from the clouds, and eventually grow, and then come down as rain. They also do things like this which reduce the size of hail from the detrimental size of golf balls to objects which are benign in nature. Chemtrails don't need any clouds. We have all seen clear blue skies turned into the ugly milky-white, grey mess. That is not the cloud seeding that is done on this video.

The Rainmakers


There is also the ruse thrown out that chemtrails are military chaff. That is yet another limited hangout, imho.


I have also stumbled across a new interview done with Scott Stevens.

Time Out Productions Interviews Scott Stevens


What I found most interesting were the comments from the YouTube viewers. There is a blogger named Blackrubberbag, who appears to be a kindred spirit to those of us at this forum. Here is what he wrote.

I thought this was pretty interesting at first, then I looked more into Scott Stevens. He loses credibility pretty quickly. He thinks that giant space ships are sending thousands of workers to the Sun every day...in some kind of effort to kill us off...

The following is from Scott's website. It is an excerpt from a caption showing a space craft near the Sun. "More workers embarking some distance from the sun's coronosphere where they will go to work on the sun's atmosphere where the heat that warms us all is created." He also writes:"Workers, workers, and more workers. Ships pull up, unload, and then return later when the assigned task has been completed. It is a job done with the precision of a military; but whose?"



If his username sounds familiar, it might be because his words were posted here before on on May41970's thread on this LynnSkyWatch video that got lost when FreeForums erased July by accident. Sometimes it is good to take a look at the comments on the youtube chemtrail videos. In some ways, these have become another big part of the discourse happening on the internet as regards to chemical trails. From the LynnSkyWatch video, I ended up locating another good one. This next one was put together by "BanjoPlant."

Chemtrails in southern Sardinia on June 10th 2007


A photo slideshow covering several hours of chemtrail activity. I've added a timestamp to each photo, and added notes and a map, so the information hopefully serves as useful raw data for the chemtrail research community.

I find it interesting to note that two weeks after this, on 25th June, the same location experienced part of the extreme heatwave that hit southern Europe. I remember it being 42C (about 108F) at 6.30pm in Pula. Although this is pure speculation on my behalf, I wonder whether the chemtrail/contrail activity was in anticipation of, or somehow linked to, the extreme heatwave that followed.


In Banjo's comment section is where one can see how Blackrubberbag sounds like a kindred spirit.

Thanks for posting. Strange days indeed. I really wish I could find some answers. Unfortunately the "chemtrail" world is long on kooks, and short on facts. Keep looking up, something is going on.


Hey, Blackrubberbag, if you are reading here, please sign up. Anyone out there who has found this forum, please sign up and post. This is not about "socrates" or "may41970." This is not all about fake this and fake that. This is all about getting the chemtrails exposed and stopped.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Discovery Channel's "Best Evidence: Chemical Contrails" show

Unread postby NatureisMad » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:56 am

On Thursday, February 8, 2007 the Discovery Channel's "Best Evidence: Chemical Contrails" show was first aired. It reran once, nationally, that I know of. We all remember that program, right?

I didn't want to start a new thread just for this. But ever since about May of earlier this year, this has perplexed me.

The Discovery Channel has a website. All of their shows are on the website. And each show has their own "forum" for feedback on the shows & such. So, on February 25, 2007, people began posting on the Best Evidence: Chemical Contrails forum. The posts continued through Feb. & March (w/ 1 single, final poster in May)

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.

Here is a link to the forum: community.discovery.com/eve/forums {chemtrails}
Born into...& trying to survive this science fiction world
User avatar
NatureisMad
solid chemmie
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:55 am
Location: Colorado

Next

Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred