A Day at the airport without geoengineering , update : until the end of the day

Clear with a chance of... "chem"trails?
February 10th, 2011 2:51 pm ET
Do you like this Article?


You watch, click or read the weather report and discover it calls for sunny skies. You throw on your t-shirt and shorts, grab a towel and head to your backyard, beach or park to catch some rays.
You get situated in the sand or grass and rub on some oil or suntan lotion. You slide on your shades and throw your head back and feel the sun on your face, the warmth on your arms and legs. It feels amazing. The heat of the ultraviolet. The feeling of peace and comfort.
Then, out of the "blue" a strange cloud drifts in from seemingly nowhere. It's kind of elongated, kind of fanned out like creamer poured into a hot cup of coffee. It becomes a strange haze and seems to diminish the sunlight like a passing cloud.
Then you see another, more thin and straight looking "condensation" line that goes from one end of the horizon to the other. Then you see another white stream that crosses over the other white line creating a miles long X in the sky.
It looks to be a contrail from a jet plane. You know, those white streaming trails left by jets at high altitudes. They are correctly referred to as "condensation trails" and contain condensed water vapor made from the exhaust of jet planes. We see them on a regular basis. Don't we?
But some concerned citizens here in the Metro Detroit area and around the country, in fact around the world, are claiming that these condensation trails are not what they appear to be. And in many cases are not what we are told they are by military and government officials.
So, what are they?
Since 1996 alternative news seekers have claimed, reported and investigated the claim that the so called condensation trails we see are more than just water vapor. That they are in fact, "chemtrails". Chemical or biological agents that are being deliberately sprayed in the skies above and upon an unsuspecting population below.
Since that time, the U.S military, NOAA, FAA, NASA, and the EPA have all denied, debunked or flat out disputed the assertions of "conspiracists" that these "chemtrails" exist. It is not a scientifically recognized phenomenon and therefore not worthy of attention, discussion or investigation. People are witnessing condensation trails that are from commercial aircraft and that the vapor trails they are seeing in varying forms are due to certain atmospheric conditions that cause the trails to spread or linger in the skies for hours. Go back to sleep your government has it under control.
Well, okay, but if it is just vapor trails from water then how does that explain the X's in the sky, which seemingly crossover existing flight patterns and is against FAA regulations. Or, even the fact that these trails linger, spread and create a haze-like smog that lingers for hours or even for whole days? Don't contrails usually dissipate a few seconds, or in some cases, even minutes after being dispersed?
If you Google "chemtrails" you will find numerous websites, blogs and references that repudiate official government explanations regarding this above your head and in your face "conspiracy". A lot of time has been devoted by private citizens and private investigators to a subject matter deemed "conspiratorial" by mainstream scientists and government officials.
The website www.carnicom.com, from investigator Clifford E. Carnicom, provides a very extensive database of "aerosol crimes". Mr. Carnicom has a vast library of chemtrail information that includes photos, chemical analysis, their effects on health conditions and their links to certain diseases, their effects on the atmosphere and vegetation and many more subjects that are affiliated with "aerosol crimes" or "chemtrails". The body of work he has accumulated is very impressive and worth reviewing for anybody curious of this subject.
Another website, www.worldaffairsbreif.com, offers a thorough breakdown of some answers to some of the gleaming questions surrounding the phenomenon.
Are these just paranoid, hysterical people looking for some type of conspiracy that includes the government conducting nefarious activities across the United States and over the Detroit metropolitan area? There are always those considered the tinfoil hat crowd that connect every official government explanation or action to some form of cover-up.
However, it is no secret nor conspiracy that the U.S military and other government funded agencies have been experimenting with weather modification since the early 1950's. Maybe even earlier. The U.S. and Canada entered into an agreement back in 1975 to exchange weather modification techniques
It was such a serious issue that was even been addressed by the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution on the Prohibition of Military or any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. This was adopted back in 1977.
Twenty years later, in 1997, the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, stated the following in a Q & A session for a Department of Defense briefing at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction and U.S Strategy held in Athens, Georgia:
"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes through electromagnetic waves... It's real and that's why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts."
Cloud seeding is a common practice nowadays here in the U.S and abroad. There are even companies that specialize in this type of weather modification. There is the Weather Modification Association and a company called Weather Modification, Inc. that provide services, analysis and resources to disperse cloud formations, seed clouds to produce rain and other modification techniques approved for use by the U.S. government.
The NOAA has been charged with regulating these activities and even has an official form to fill out. Notice in section six it clearly states "modification techniques and dispersal rates". Nothing weird there. Just the usual paperwork.
Cloud dispersal was conducted a few years back in St. Petersburg, Russia just days leading up to an international summit and scheduled parade. China was cloud seeding back in 2009 in the hopes of creating rain clouds to combat severe drought. Well, when this happened they over seeded and did not predict a sudden cold front which turned the rain into snow.
So, what are chemtrails? Are they modification programs to control weather fronts? Chemical and biological agents? Are those in power trying to reduce sunlight from entering the atmosphere in the hopes of preventing global climate change?
The jury is still out. But, the underlying fact is that technology does exist to modify weather. Military technology is always 30-40 years ahead of our time. There is no telling what types of weapons, chemical agents or experiments are being conducted without our knowledge and/or consent. The mere fact that people are aware and concerned and raising public awareness makes for an interesting debate.
After all, people were raising concerns about fluoride in our drinking water decades ago. And the FDA just released a statement that our water here in the U.S is over fluoridated thus causing undue medical conditions.
People were raising awareness about the effects of toxins in cigarettes for years. We know how that played out.
Advocates and scientists are now concerned and leaning toward sounding the alarm as to the serious health effects related to cell phone use.
Can we count on our government to actually tell us the truth if in fact they are conducting some type of aerosol campaign that is experimental in nature and causing illnesses, droughts, severe weather, etc.? Probably not.
After all, most government programs that are harmful to us physically or psychologically or that subvert civil liberties are done in the name of national security. They're protecting us. They care for our safety. Right?
As you walk outside and view the sky and notice planes flying at high altitudes, creating X's in the sky from condensation from their engine vapor and crossing each others flight patterns against FAA regulations. Ask yourself if this is standard commercial airline activity being conducted? Or could it be something else?
If you pay particular close attention to movies, animated features, cartoons, commercials and print and web ads, you will see these white trails in the skies as if they're a common occurrence. As if they're a part of the sky and that we should be all too familiar with seeing these "chemtrails" in our everyday lives. So often that you won't even notice that anything is out of the ordinary. So often that you never question their existence.
Is it subliminal? Is it psychological? How do you know... if you don't even know to ask?


By Bryon Palmer


Continue reading on Examiner.com: Clear with a chance of... "chem"trails? - Detroit American Government | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/american-government-in-detroit/clear-with-a-chance-of-chem-trails#comment-14337601#ixzz1DcawZVHl

Nasa loves higher gas prices and geo-engineering

High fuel costs: good Environment premium

PRICES of fuel may be soaring high, but that is a plus for the environment.
Although, prohibitive prices may not be enough to keep people from using their cars, many environmentalists believe that the high prices push people to sparingly use their vehicles for cost considerations.
This would mean reduced carbon emissions, one that is good for the environment.
Dr. Josefino E. Comiso, a hydrospheric and biospheric scientist of the National Aeronautical Services Administration (NASA) of the Goddard Space Flight Center who attended the Regional Forum for Climate Change held at the Bohol Island State University early this week, warned of more effects of global warming if people do not reduce or terminate the use of fossil fuels, including the most preferred gasoline and diesel fuels.
He explained during the forum that doubling of carbon dioxide will happen within the century.
Carbondioxide, which has fairly been confirmed as the major contributor of the phenomenon called global warming has made 2010 the warmest year recorded by far in the century.
While he did not say if 2011 would beat that, it is however safe to assume that with the growing carbon emissions by motor vehicles alone can raise the amount and that we are in for hotter climates, a forum participant said.
With fossil fuel for vehicle use contributing much for climate changed, scientists are braving the fields of technology to find ways to significantly cut on their use.
But the effects do not happen overnight, scientists have said.
According to the estimates, the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113) provides values for carbon content per gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel, and they are 19.4 pounds/gallon for gasoline and 22.2 pounds/gallon for diesel.
This may not be as much but with the millions of gallons of fuel used every day, the carbon emission, which does not break down until an average of 150 years remain stored in the atmosphere, adding more and more to the pile emitted by factories and the greenhouse gasses.
The prohibitive price of fuel therefore is one good thing that supports these efforts.
Here, Dr. Comiso suggested that people help in suppressing the increase of carbon dioxide emissions to help stabilize earth surface temperatures.
He also proposed the shift from fossil fuel use to clean and alternative energy sources including the move to design green buildings and houses aside from reforestation and geo-engineering or the international large scale manipulation of the global environment to impact on the disaster-packing global phenomenon.

Geoengineering in the Netherlands feb 7th 2011

WEATHER WEAPON ?

http://cftc.gov/ucm/groups/public/@lrfederalregister/documents/frcomment/08-004c002.pdf

Nothing but blue skies today ? Why ?

Feb 7th 2011 same crap different day !

http://geoengineering.googlegroups.com/web/NASA+MEETING.pdf?gda=XrSLwUQAAACx8WJyO7g3ViKK3m8Pmu6GKutaTcNDZLJwsPe9wbBEdlDltoG13iIWeYL_eatdgVJV6u9SiETdg0Q2ffAyHU-dzc4BZkLnSFWX59nr5BxGqA&hl=en

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/web/jet-fuel-additive?hl=en

jet-fuel-additive

Aviation Fuel Additive to Deliver Stratospheric Aerosols

 Unlike most members of this group I am not professionally involved in climate but my suggestion may be relevant to two proposals already discussed in this group.

--SO2 producing sulphuric acid. By Paul Crutzen.

--Diatoms. From crushed diatomite. Greg Benford and others(diatoms are silica)

I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel.

 Different chemicals would obviously be required for the two products but the delivery system would be the same and is therefore described first as follows.

 How to Deliver Products Into the Stratosphere. 

Obviously we would not want to release these products at other phases of the aircraft flight so it is not suggested that an additive should be put generally into aviation fuel.  We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere.

The following information comes from a 747-400 captain flying regularly from the Far East to Europe and the West Coast of United States.  Being near retirement, and having started his career with the RAF, he describes the flight plan provided to him for a long flight now as amazingly comprehensive and accurate.  Such plans rely on detailed knowledge of weather along the whole route including lower stratospheric winds.

In addition he tells me that it is perfectly possible for the pilot to select, for instance, the outer starboard wing tank to feed the outer starboard engine at a particular time during the flight.

It would seem therefore to be perfectly possible to put the additive into one tank only and to use that tank when the plane was defined in the flight plan to be in the stratosphere.  Aircraft cruising altitudes vary between about 30 and 40,000 ft (9 to 12km).  The lower boundary of the stratosphere varies from about 20,000 ft. (6 km) near the pole to close to 55,000 ft. (17km) at times on the equator. 

These heights also vary considerably with weather conditions so careful planning as part of the flight plan would obviously be necessary

Fuel Additive To Produce Sulphur Dioxide on Burning.

 Sulphur dioxide is already present in the combustion products of aviation fuel.  This is because of the organic sulphur compounds naturally present in oil and great trouble is taken to reduce the proportion because of the acid effects of sulphur dioxide in the lower atmosphere.  It should be very easy to use these same sulphur compounds as the additive, which would then only be burned in the stratosphere.  Since these compounds are already present in aviation fuel it is very unlikely that they will cause any problem to the engine.

Fuel Additive to Produce Microscopic Silica Particles. 

At first sight it might seem difficult to produce solid particles from the liquid fuel. It is however perfectly normal chemistry to have a compound which is mainly hydrocarbon like jet fuel but has one or two other atoms in the molecule which have a solid oxide on burning.

I have been experimenting with tetra ethyl silicate.  There is only one silicon atom of the thirty-three in the molecule.  The rest of the molecule is hydrocarbon so it is not surprising that it is a colourless liquid similar to aviation kerosene, which dissolves in kerosene in any proportion.

To simulate a jet engine I have used a paraffin blowlamp.  The solution burns just like paraffin.  At a concentration of 1% a mist or smoke is visible in a spotlight beam.  It is probable that the mist is microscopic crystals of silicon dioxide. This is chemically the same as the diatomite.

 Tetra ethyl silicate is so similar to aviation kerosene that it will probably make no difference to the engine when used in low concentration. Obviously this needs to be tested properly and it is also possible that the microscopic particles will coalesce near the end of the turbine and cause abrasion.

It is also obviously necessary to confirm that the combustion product is silica, to determine the size of the particles, to compare this with the diatomite particles and many other points. 

Testing 

Assuming satisfactory completion of engine testing, atmospheric testing could be started almost immediately. Greg Benfold has already suggested an atmospheric testing scenario in “Saving the Arctic”

I think this is the only proposal, where satisfactory testing could be transferred into large scale implementation immediately at negligible cost.

Owning the weather

Quit treading on us !

are they geoengineering ?

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/064-111195-010-01-03-911-20110103STO11194-2011-10-01-2011/default_en.htm    
The idea is very simple, when you put particles in the atmosphere; they scatter radiation back into space. These particles can be produced from the oxidation of Sulphur Dioxide or also sea salt particles at low altitudes - there are various projects going on.

Very active skies again Ground Hog Day Feb 2nd . click to enlarge

New pictures Vero Beach Fl. 1-31-11 / 2-1-11 click pics to enlarge

contrails or ?

Someone trying to convince me these are just regular contrails sent me a link to contrails to convince me geoengineering doesnt exist or Chemtrails as some call them . I say next time you send me a link trying to debunk me search the site first because you never know what youll find . LOL    http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9132

Geoengineering research, getting real

DECEMBER 1, 2010

Geoengineering research is emerging from the laboratory.

Government-funded scientists in the UK are moving forward with a pair of small-scale, carefully-controlled experiments–one to test the qualities of particles that could be used to block the sun’s rays, and another in which droplets of water will be pumped into the air using a one-kilometer-long pipe.

The experiments are designed to help scientists better understand how a geoengineering technique known as solar radiation management, often called SRM, would work. For those of you who haven’t been paying attention,Geoengineering is the deliberate manipulation of the earth’s climate to counter the effects of global warming. Solar radiation management, meanwhile, is a technique intended to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, and thereby cool the planet. SRM can be attempted in a variety of ways, including by  injecting sulfate particles into the upper atmosphere to form aerosols–a process that happens naturally when volcanoes erupt, leading to a temporary global cooling.

How (maybe) to cool the planet

This is my fifth blogpost this year on geoengineering. (The others can be foundhere.) While the idea of geoengineering is, at first glance, so  so strange and scary that some people want to ban any research into climate manipulation,  I’m convinced the time has come not just for scientific research but for public conversation about geoengineering.

Why? Simply because the world’s collective efforts to curb climate change, such as they are, are failing. This week, while thousands of officials are meeting in Cancun for the UN’s COP16, the 16th major round of negotiations to deal with climate change, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. (See Cancun can’t: Ten reasons why the climate talks will fail) Last year’s emissions were 37% above those in 1990. So we’re not mitigating at all–to the contrary, our actions, each and every day, increase the danger of catastrophic climate disruptions. Earlier this year, a U.S. government interagency report concluded:

It is clear that impacts in the United States are already occurring and are projected to increase in the future, particularly if the concentration of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise.

Which is why we need to think about geoengineering, if only as a way to buy time for a gradual transition to clean energy. The Brits are ahead of us in this regard; the UK’s Royal Society, Britain’s premiere scientific society,  published a major study on geoengineering last year, saying that man-made efforts to cool the earth “may provide a potentially useful short-term back-up to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperature are needed.”

Since then, government-funded research councils have agreed to sponsor two projects. One is known as the Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP), which will deliver an overview of the different potential techniques that might be used to geoengineer climate. The other, known as Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering, or SPICE, spans four UK universities and is intended to address “the gaps in our knowledge about effectiveness and side effects of geoengineering schemes.” Funding is 1.61 million pounds, according toEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, a major funder.

Matt Watson

Recently, Matthew Watson, an earth scientist at the University of Bristol, who’s leading one of the research projects, came to Washington to talk about the SPICE project. He spoke to a geoengineering task force assembled by the DC-based Bipartisan Policy Center, which is studying the issue. The SPICE research, he said, is notably because it is publicly-funded and because it will be the first peer-reviewed research that takes geoengineering beyond computer simulations.

The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council describes SPICE this way:

The SPICE project will investigate the effectiveness of stratospheric particle injection. It will address the three grand challenges in solar radiation management: 1. How much, of what, needs to be injected where into the atmosphere to effectively and safely manage the climate system? 2. How do we deliver it there? 3. What are the likely impacts?

One part of SPICE, according to Watson, will examine the qualities of particles to be injected into the stratosphere by using lasers at the Rutherford-Appleton laboratory in Oxfordshire. “We’re going to investigate a range of natural and man made particles,” he said, in an effort to figure out which would be best. The issues are quite technical–particles must be very small (o.2 or 0.3 microns thick) to be effective.

A second part of project, he explained, will examine the question of how to deliver the particles. Scientists have talked about using airplanes, balloons or pipes tethered to the ground. Former Microsoft chief technology officer Nathan Myhrvold, who is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures in Seatlle, has talked about building a “garden hose to the sky” to deliver the particles.

Plans call for scientists to build a 1Km-long pipe, about 1/20 of the length that would eventually be needed, on a location still to be determined, and to pump either water or saltwater into the air, to see how the pipe would work. “This is an engineering test, not a climate test,” Watson said.

None of this, it should be noted, will go forward without ample opportunity for the public to comment. Geoengineering raises an array of ethical, political and governance issues; no one would want the discussion to be left to the scientists.

George Soros Center for American Progress

Are they pushing geoengineering     http://climateprogress.org/

A Climate Cure’s Dark Side

Bloomimage-Corbis

It sounded like a panacea for climate change: “geo-engineering” the atmosphere to block some sunlight and counter global warming. Now scientists scrutinizing the approach say it could produce dangerous cascade effects, severely disrupting weather and agriculture—and might fail to block the worst of the greenhouse effects anyway.

Two prominent climate scientists raised the possibility of geo-engineering in 2006, and it’s been invoked as the world’s emergency escape hatch ever since—a quick fix to stabilize or even reverse the heating of the planet. It would head off worsening heat waves, droughts, and rising sea levels. The estimated price is right, too. A 2009 analysis found that geo-engineering would cost only $2 billion or so a year, chump change compared with converting from CO2-producing coal, oil, and natural gas to wind, solar, nuclear, and biofuels.

But further study shows worrying pitfalls, according to a series of research papers that will appear in the next issue of Atmospheric Science Letters. The greatest threat is to Asian monsoons, which are driven by the temperature difference between warm land and cooler seas. In one scheme, a fleet of jets would crisscross the planet releasing five megatons of sulfur dioxide gas every year. The gas would mix with water in the stratosphere to form minuscule particles called sulfate aerosols, which scatter incoming sunlight back to space before it warms the atmosphere or ground. (That’s also how volcanic eruptions cool the planet.)

But oceans are harder to cool than land. As the sun effectively dims, warmer land cools faster than cooler oceans, explains meteorologist Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Shrinking that land-sea temperature gap would enfeeble the summer monsoons over Asia and Africa, a possible catastrophe for the billions who depend on that rain for their crops.

Perversely, geo-engineering might also reinforce some of the worst consequences of global warming, says climate modeler Olivier Boucher of the British Met Office, the U.K.’s national weather service. He has focused on a plan for ships to spray seawater up above the oceans, where it would evaporate to form a layer of sea-salt aerosols—making marine clouds brighter and reflecting more sunlight back to space. But because of where the clouds cluster, cooling effects wouldn’t be uniform. That would likely intensify greenhouse-induced drying in the Amazon, threatening the riot of species that live there, as well as the rainforest’s ability to suck up CO2.

In perhaps the greatest surprise to scientists, geo-engineering looks like it would fail to stop warming in the Arctic. “Quite a bit of warming keeps occurring there,” says Boucher, “so you don’t manage to reverse the greenhouse effect there.” Trouble is, loss of sea ice saps high-pressure bands that bottle up arctic winds, steering winter storms farther south. Europe and the U.S. would continue to be walloped by severe winter cold and snow, and ocean levels would keep rising. (Expect a seller’s market in sea walls.)

Most worrisome is how geo-engineering might disrupt “teleconnections.” These long-distance links let atmospheric conditions in one place influence weather half a world away. The best known teleconnection is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation: warm waters in the eastern Pacific that weaken the easterly trade winds, bringing deluges to the Southern U.S. and Peru but drought to Indonesia and Australia. “The strength and occurrence of [El Niño] might change in a geo-engineered world,” says climate scientist Peter Braesicke of the University of Cambridge. Even if safe and effective approaches are found, scientists can’t answer what may be the ultimate challenge: securing long-term political and economic support for the such measures. If the world becomes suddenly unwilling or unable to keep supplying the atmosphere with sunblock even as we continue to pump out CO2, we’ll be worse off than where we started.

Beware of the danger of geo-engineering

• Story
• Discussion

Roland Micklem / Savannah | Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:00 am | (1) Comments

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

We’ve changed the composition of ocean water, we’ve remodeled the landscape, and we’ve created monster weather patterns. And now, to rescue us from the pickle we’ve gotten ourselves into, there’s talk about further manipulating the climate to compensate for the imbalances that human activity has brought about.

With a dawning realization that curbing greenhouse gases produced by an industrial society borders on the impossible, some of the very people who have been in denial about human-induced climate change are now looking at artificial ways to mitigate a steady rise in global temperatures.

Lumped under the catchall phrase of Geo-engineering, these initiatives seek to deploy iffy and unproven technologies — such as shields to reflect solar radiation, iron compounds to neutralize the acidity of ocean waters, aerosol seeding of the stratosphere, and other questionable schemes.

All to control a phenomenon about which we still know very little — the mechanics of the atmosphere. The unpredictability of the skies’ multiple moods, as manifested by our day-to-day weather and long range climate trends, is appreciated by experienced weather and climate professionals, few of whom would suggest tinkering with it’s intricate works.

 I managed to Google up a long (57 minute) lecture by Keith Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute’s Department of Global Ecology.

 Caldeira was exploring the idea of dabbling with nature on this gargantuan scale. I could hardly believe my ears at some of the wild proposals that were being trotted out, examined, and added to a list of options we could deploy in the likely event the C02 count goes off the charts and we humans are too undisciplined to kick our fossil fuel addiction.

I will spare you the technical details, which I’d have to play over and over to understand well enough to explain.

What stuck with me, however, was the admission that once any or all of the procedures were implemented they would have to continue unabated with no interruption — otherwise the buildup of greenhouse gases would effectively cook the planet. And few of us would want to live with the side effects.

Regular seeding of the stratosphere with sulfate aerosols would result in a permanent, whitish haze, and we earthbound humans in the affected regions would never see a blue sky again.

These are just two of the possible consequences of opening this Pandora’s Box.

And Caldeira closed his lecture on a precautionary note that was the understatement of the year.

“The earth system,” he reminded us, “is notoriously complex, and one can assume that tinkering with it on a global scale will produce unanticipated outcomes.”

Amen to that.