SRM/GEOENGINEERING

[youtubeif]a2x6TEeknfo[/youtubeif]

Dane Wigington explains and exposes the causes and consequences of global solar radiation management/geoengineering.

The most important issue related to species survival.

Discretion advised (not for children).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlbo5VpFO-g

[YOUTUBEIF]xlbo5VpFO-g[/YOUTUBEIF]

Ted Gunderson, former FBI chiefs testimony on chemtrails.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/solas/documents/solas-final-report.pdf

..."A2.4.1 Aircraft and ship-based fieldwork, including manipulation experiments
Approach i) To conduct large-scale, multidisciplinary field campaigns based on hypothesis-testing and including simultaneous measurements in the surface ocean and lower atmosphere
Field experiments using state of the art techniques will directly address the issue of air-sea exchange, with major campaigns expected to be carried out in collaboration with the international SOLAS effort. Available techniques include multiple tracer releases, as pioneered by the UK (Watson et al, 1991), and micro-meteorological techniques such as eddy correlation (as recently verified at sea for CO2; McGillis et al, 2001). UK SOLAS provides the opportunity to develop the latter technique further, in conjunction with eddy accumulation and boundary layer gradient methods, to measure the fluxes of a range of gases and particles from ships, autonomous vehicles and/or from fixed platforms. By deploying these approaches simultaneously, together with physical observations, a quantitative assessment of their accuracy will be possible, which should greatly improve our ability to specify k under different sea states and with different surface film conditions (Nightingale et al, 2000); see 3.3 above.
In addition to studies of 'undisturbed' conditions, field manipulation experiments are envisaged. These experiments could include: addition of real or artificial dust, or selected elements, to the surface ocean; investigation of the effect of specific rain events; and the induction of small scale ocean upwelling (as being developed by Japan SOLAS). Such perturbation studies demand a highly interdisciplinary and often Lagrangian
43
approach. To maximise their benefits, coordinated use of aircraft, ships and ground-based platforms is needed, preferably for at least 6-8 weeks. Purposeful tracers (eg SF6) may be part of manipulation experiments, or as part of 'observational' process studies – not only to follow surface water movements, but also (potentially) for air mass tracking, to investigate the evolution of chemical reactions in the atmosphere under in situ conditions.
Atmospheric studies will make use of the new aircraft instruments available for measuring the physical and chemical nature of aerosols, radicals (OH, HO2, RO2), hydrocarbons and oxygenated and halogenated VOCs, as well as a full suite of „standard‟ chemical species. In addition, deployment of a medium-sized tethered balloon would allow studies of boundary-layer structure and the altitude dependence of selected atmospheric constituents (Moore et al, 2003). A wide range of ground-based instruments is expected to be available for physical and chemical measurements, including wind and O3 profilers.
The above measurements will be supported by meteorological data, derivations of air mass back trajectories, satellite data on ocean surface characteristics and atmospheric properties (see 4.3) and calculations based on chemistry/transport models (CTMs). Coupled with flux measurements to determine the local sea to air fluxes, this will allow assessment of the regional contribution to atmospheric composition at the measurement site. The resulting datasets are expected to be used in conjunction with detailed chemistry box models, incorporating both gas and aerosol phases, and CTMs to develop our understanding of the influence of ocean fluxes on aerosol formation, composition and evolution, and on gas phase processing.
Joint field campaigns with other UK and non-UK research programmes will be considered where appropriate. For example, working with international SOLAS and IGAC projects, the latter including the African Monsoon Multidisciplinary Analysis (AMMA) that has UK involvement and an overlapping timescale with UK SOLAS."

A3.5 Training
"PhD training was directly provided to a total of 10 scientists through both 'tied studentship' awards (linked to first round UK SOLAS research grant proposals) and CASE studentships (collaborative awards, with research-user partners) supported through the Knowledge Transfer funding round; see below.
Provision was made so that additional non-UK SOLAS funded PhD candidates could also participate in UK SOLAS research cruises and field campaigns when their participation furthered the goals of the campaign."

purchased research...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/hr2977.html

HR 2977 IH
107th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention
Pacific Grove, CA. March 22-26, 2010



The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles
for Research into Climate Engineering Techniques

The Scientific Organizing Committee for the Asilomar Conference on Climate Engineering Technologies that was held last March is pleased to provide the Conference Report. More than 165 experts from 15 countries participated, bringing a wide diversity of perspectives and backgrounds, including natural science, engineering, social science, humanities, law, and other fields. Participants reaffirmed that the risks posed by ongoing climate change require a strong commitment to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and development of low-carbon energy sources, independent of whether climate intervention methods ultimately prove to be safe and feasible.

Presentations summarized the two major categories of climate engineering: (a) remediation technologies, such as afforestation, carbon removal, and ocean fertilization, that attempt to reduce the causes of climate change, and so represent an extension of mitigation, and (b) intervention technologies, such as solar radiation management, that attempt to moderate the results of having altered atmospheric composition, and so represent an extension of adaptation to climate change. Discussions explored a wide range of issues related to ensuring that research into proposed climate intervention methods will be responsibly and transparently conducted and that potential consequences are thoroughly investigated.

Adoption of five principles was recommended:
1.Climate engineering research should be aimed at promoting the collective benefit of humankind and the environment;
2.Governments must clarify responsibilities for, and, when necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of large-scale climate engineering research activities;
3.Climate-engineering research should be conducted openly and cooperatively, preferably within a framework that has broad international support;
4.Iterative, independent technical assessments of research progress will be required to inform the public and policymakers; and
5.Public participation and consultation in research planning and oversight, assessments, and development of decision-making mechanisms and processes must be provided.

http://www.climate.org/resources/climate-archives/conferences/asilomar/report.html
----------
Summary
Climate change policies at both the national and international levels have traditionally focused on measures to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to adapt to the actual or anticipated impacts of changes in the climate.

As a participant in several international agreements on climate change, the United States has joined with other nations to express concern about climate change. Some recent technological advances and hypotheses, generally referred to as “geoengineering” technologies, have created alternatives to traditional approaches to mitigating climate change. If deployed, these new technologies could modify the Earth’s climate on a large scale. Moreover, these new technologies may become available to foreign governments and entities in the private sector to use unilaterally—without authorization from the United States government or an international treaty—as was done in the summer of 2012 when an American citizen conducted an ocean fertilization experiment off the coast of Canada.
The term “geoengineering” describes an array of technologies that aim, through large-scale and deliberate modifications of the Earth’s energy balance, to reduce temperatures and counteract anthropogenic climate change. Most of these technologies are at the conceptual and research stages, and their effectiveness at reducing global temperatures has yet to be proven. Moreover, very few studies have been published that document the cost, environmental effects, sociopolitical impacts, and legal implications of geoengineering. If geoengineering technologies were to be deployed, they are expected to have the potential to cause significant transboundary effects.
In general, geoengineering technologies are categorized as either a carbon dioxide removal
(CDR) method or a solar radiation management (SRM) method. CDR methods address the
warming effects of greenhouse gases by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR methods include ocean fertilization, and carbon capture and sequestration. SRM method address climate change by increasing the reflectivity of the Earth’s atmosphere or surface.
Aerosol injection and space-based reflectors are examples of SRM methods. SRM methods do not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, but can be deployed faster with relatively immediate global cooling results compared to CDR methods.
To date, there is limited federal involvement in, or oversight of, geoengineering. However, some states as well as some federal agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense, have taken actions related to geoengineering research or projects. At the international level, there is no international agreement or organization governing the full spectrum of possible geoengineering activities. Nevertheless, provisions of many international agreements, including those relating to climate change, maritime pollution, and air pollution, would likely inform the types of geoengineering activities that state parties to these agreements might choose to pursue. In 2010, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted provisions calling for member parties to abstain from geoengineering unless the parties have fully considered the risks and impacts of those activities on biodiversity.
With the possibility that geoengineering technologies may be developed and that climate change will remain an issue of global concern, policymakers may determine whether geoengineering warrants attention at either the federal or international level. If so, policymakers will also need to consider whether geoengineering can be effectively addressed by amendments to existing laws and international agreements or, alternatively, whether new laws and international treaties would need to be developed.

more:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf

this is a lonely pursuit.

Climate Engineering – What do the public think?

10 January 2014 Southampton, University of
Under embargo until 12 January 2014 18:00 GMT


Members of the public have a negative view of climate engineering, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the environment to counteract climate change, according to a new study.

The results are from researchers from the University of Southampton and Massey University (New Zealand) who have undertaken the first systematic large-scale evaluation of the public reaction to climate engineering.

The work is published in Nature Climate Change this week (12 January 2014).

Some scientists think that climate engineering approaches will be required to combat the inexorable rise in atmospheric CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels. Climate engineering could involve techniques that reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere or approaches that slow temperature rise by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface.

Co-author Professor Damon Teagle of the University of Southampton said: “Because even the concept of climate engineering is highly controversial, there is pressing need to consult the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are made.”

Lead author, Professor Malcolm Wright of Massey University, said: “Previous attempts to engage the public with climate engineering have been exploratory and small scale. In our study, we have drawn on commercial methods used to evaluate brands and new product concepts to develop a comparative approach for evaluating the public reaction to a variety of climate engineering concepts.”

The results show that the public has strong negative views towards climate engineering. Where there are positive reactions, they favour approaches that reduce carbon dioxide over those that reflected sunlight.

“It was a striking result and a very clear pattern,” said Professor Wright. “Interventions such as putting mirrors in space or fine particles into the stratosphere are not well received. More natural processes of cloud brightening or enhanced weathering are less likely to raise objections, but the public react best to creating biochar (making charcoal from vegetation to lock in CO2) or capturing carbon directly from the air.”

Nonetheless, even the most well regarded techniques still has a net negative perception.

The work consulted large representative samples in both Australia and New Zealand. Co-author Pam Feetham said: “The responses are remarkably consistent from both countries, with surprisingly few variations except for a slight tendency for older respondents to view climate engineering more favourably.”

Professor Wright noted that giving the public a voice so early in technological development was unusual, but increasingly necessary. “If these techniques are developed the public must be consulted. Our methods can be employed to evaluate the responses in other countries and reapplied in the future to measure how public opinion changes as these potential new technologies are discussed and developed,” he said.

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=137948&CultureCode=en

Monsanto Buys Climate Corporation

Monsanto Buys Climate Corporation

5 Ways Monsanto Wants to Profit Off Climate Change

The agriculture giant has a variety solutions for mitigating and adapting to global warming.

Wed Oct. 9, 2013 2:00 AM GMT

Global warming could mean big business for controversial agriculture giant Monsanto, which announced last week it was purchasing the climate change-oriented startup Climate Corporation for $930 million.


1. Data to help farmers grow crops in a changing climate. Climate Corporation, which Monsanto is acquiring, sells detailed weather and soil information to farmers with the stated mission of helping "all the world's people and businesses manage and adapt to climate change." This data is meant to help farmers better plan, track, and harvest their crops, ultimately making farms more productive. According to its press release, Monsanto thinks the ag data business will be a $20-billion market, and that farmers using these tools could increase their yield BY 30 to 50 bushels (that's between 1,700 and 2,800 shelled pounds).

In a video interview about the acquisition, Monsanto vice president of global strategy Kerry Preete told TechCrunch: "We think weather patterns are becoming more erratic, it places a huge challenge on farmers with their production. We think a lot of the risk can be mitigated out of weather impact through information," Preete said. "If you know what's going on every day in the field, based on climate changes, soil variations that exist, we can really help farmers mitigate some of the challenges that impact their yield."

2. Insurance for when it's too hot, cold, dry, wet, or otherwise extreme outside. Climate Corporation currently sells both federally subsidized crop insurance and supplemental plans that pay out additional benefits when crops go awry. While federal insurance repays farmers up to the break-even point for a failed crop, Climate Corporation insures the lost profits as well. Monsanto says it will maintain this insurance business.

Though the broader insurance industry is concerned about losses due to major natural disasters occurring more often as the result of climate change, insuring crops is less risky because payouts for a damaged crop season a generally smaller than those for dense, damaged urban areas, according to Gerald Nelson, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois.

3. Drought-resistant corn. Monsanto lists the effects of climate change-related precipitation changes and droughts as a potential "opportunity" in its most recent filing with the Carbon Disclosure Project, explaining that "climate changes also will require agriculture to be more resilient." The company adds that it is "positioned well to deliver products to farmers that are climate resilient." This year, Monsanto started rolling out a new line of patented, first-of-its-kind genetically engineered corn seeds that are resistant to drought. The seeds are engineered so that they can withstand the stress of a drought by using less water when it is dry outside, but still yield the same amount of corn during a regular harvest, according to Farm Progress.

In southern Africa, where corn is the largest agricultural product, last month's report from the IPCC predicts that by the end of the century, it is "likely" that the area will become dryer due to climate change and that this "will [increase] the risk of agricultural drought." Though the drought-resistant corn is currently only being sold in the US, the market for hybrid corn in South Africa alone is worth an estimated $250 million, according to Reuters, and the continent has an estimated 75 million acres of land available for corn production. Monsanto has been ramping up its presence in sub-Saharan Africa through the Gates foundation-funded Water Efficient Maize for Africa program, donating germplasm (starter seeds) and drought-tolerant corn traits and, Reuters says, developing relationships with local organizations.

4. Cotton that needs less water to grow. Corn isn't the only crop that Monsanto is reengineering for a changing climate. The company is piloting genetically modified cotton with "improved water use" that that can grow while using less water and survive drought.

The IPCC predicted in 2007 that climate change will lead to decreased cotton yields across the South in the coming years. In cotton-producing states such as Texas, water scarcity is an issue and heat waves can evaporate the water available in soil and in reservoirs, which may make water-preserving crops attractive when they come to market. States along the cotton belt, which stretches across much of the southeastern US and into Texas, have been stricken by extreme heat and drought in recent years. A recent report from NOAA found that climate change increased both the magnitude and likelihood of extreme heat waves taking place in the us but "had little impact on the lack of precipitation in the central United States in 2012."

5. Crops for biofuel. Since 1993, Monsanto has sold high-yield, highly fermentable corn seed specifically designed to be made into ethanol—it was the first company to do so. Ethanol processors that have partnered with Monsanto through a related program buy the corn at a premium because it produces more fuel per bushel of corn. The company also sells soybeans and sorghum, which can be used to produce biofuel.

Whether ethanol is actually a "green" fuel is debatable. But in recent years, laws aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil have helped boost its production, and if corn-based ethanol continues rising in demand, "the financial opportunity could be significant for the business," Monsanto says in its Carbon Disclosure Project filing.

see where this is going?

see where this is going?

Blackwater's Black Ops


Internal documents reveal the firm's clandestine work for multinationals and governments.


Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto's security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.

Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto's Wilson initially said, "I'm not going to discuss it with you." In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating "there was no such discussion." He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto "with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites." Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was "a completely separate entity from Blackwater."

more:
http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops#

Geoengineering the Climate System

A Policy Statement of the American Meteorological Society
(Readopted by the AMS Council on 6 January 2013)

PDF Version

Human responsibility for most of the well-documented increase in global average temperatures over the last half century is well established. Further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate changes that can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations1.

Three proactive strategies could reduce the risks of climate change: 1) mitigation: reducing emissions; 2) adaptation: moderating climate impacts by increasing our capacity to cope with them; and 3) geoengineering: deliberately manipulating physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the Earth system2. This policy statement focuses on large-scale efforts to geoengineer the climate system to counteract the consequences of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Geoengineering could lower greenhouse gas concentrations, provide options for reducing specific climate impacts, or offer strategies of last resort if abrupt, catastrophic, or otherwise unacceptable climate-change impacts become unavoidable by other means. However, research to date has not determined whether there are large-scale geoengineering approaches that would produce significant benefits, or whether those benefits would substantially outweigh the detriments. Indeed, geoengineering must be viewed with caution because manipulating the Earth system has considerable potential to trigger adverse and unpredictable consequences.

Geoengineering proposals fall into at least three broad categories: 1) reducing the levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases through large-scale manipulations (e.g., ocean fertilization or afforestation using non-native species); 2) exerting a cooling influence on Earth by reflecting sunlight (e.g., putting reflective particles into the atmosphere, putting mirrors in space, increasing surface reflectivity, or altering the amount or characteristics of clouds); and 3) other large-scale manipulations designed to diminish climate change or its impacts (e.g., constructing vertical pipes in the ocean that would increase downward heat transport).

Geoengineering proposals differ widely in their potential to reduce impacts, create new risks, and redistribute risk among nations. Techniques that remove CO2 directly from the air would confer global benefits but could also create adverse local impacts. Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns. As with inadvertent human-induced climate change, the consequences of reflecting sunlight would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic, and national security concerns.

Exploration of geoengineering strategies also creates potential risks. The possibility of quick and seemingly inexpensive geoengineering fixes could distract the public and policy makers from critically needed efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build society’s capacity to deal with unavoidable climate impacts. Developing any new capacity, including geoengineering, requires resources that will possibly be drawn from more productive uses. Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment decisions, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences.

Even if reasonably effective and beneficial overall, geoengineering is unlikely to alleviate all of the serious impacts from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, enhancing solar reflection would not diminish the direct effects of elevated CO2 concentrations such as ocean acidification or changes to the structure and function of biological systems.

Still, the threat of climate change is serious. Mitigation efforts so far have been limited in magnitude, tentative in implementation, and insufficient for slowing climate change enough to avoid potentially serious impacts. Even aggressive mitigation of future emissions cannot avoid dangerous climate changes resulting from past emissions, because elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations persist in the atmosphere for a long time. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all of the expected climate-change impacts can be managed through adaptation. Thus, it is prudent to consider geoengineering’s potential benefits, to understand its limitations, and to avoid ill-considered deployment.

Therefore, the American Meteorological Society recommends:

1.Enhanced research on the scientific and technological potential for geoengineering the climate system, including research on intended and unintended environmental responses.
2.Coordinated study of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering that integrates international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational issues and perspectives and includes lessons from past efforts to modify weather and climate.
3.Development and analysis of policy options to promote transparency and international cooperation in exploring geoengineering options along with restrictions on reckless efforts to manipulate the climate system.

Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts. The potential to help society cope with climate change and the risks of adverse consequences imply a need for adequate research, appropriate regulation, and transparent deliberation.

[This statement is considered in force until January 2017 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date]

© American Meteorological Society, 45 Beacon Street, Boston, MA 02108-3693

______________________

1For example, impacts are expected to include further global warming, continued sea level rise, greater rainfall intensity, more serious and pervasive droughts, enhanced heat stress episodes, ocean acidification, and the disruption of many biological systems. These impacts will likely lead to the inundation of coastal areas, severe weather, and the loss of ecosystem services, among other major negative consequences.

2These risk management strategies sometimes overlap and some specific actions are difficult to classify uniquely. To the extent that a geoengineering approach improves society’s capacity to cope with changes in the climate system, it could reasonably be considered adaptation. Similarly, geological carbon sequestration is considered by many to be mitigation even though it requires manipulation of the Earth system.

AMS LogoUpdated: 01/24/2013
Headquarters: 45 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108-3693
DC Office: 1200 New York Ave NW, Suites 450 & 500, Washington, DC 20005-3928
[email protected] Phone: 617-227-2425 Fax: 617-742-8718
© 2012 American Meteorological Society Privacy Policy and Disclaimer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B8Yi7AZvQ

[YOUTUBEIF]O0B8Yi7AZvQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

Chemtrails: US Patent 5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming


Long have I suspected that the suspicious cloud-spreading activity in the sky commonly called “Chemtrails” has been part of a program and research into methods to reduce the amount of Solar radiation and heat and therefore to reduce Global Warming.

Today I discovered US PATENT #5003186. Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming. Patented March 26, 1991.

Everything I suspected has been patented.
Chemtrails Are "Small Reflecting Particles" In The Upper Atmosphere.
Back in march of this year on the above thread I said "My chemtrail theory is this... They are spraying a substance which is meant to reflect sunlight and alter the albedo of Earth."

THIS WAS BEFORE I DISCOVERED THIS DOCUMENT TODAY 10/24/2009!!!

Most important notes from the Patent PDF:
"A method is disclosed for the reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer. The method comprises the step of seeding the greenhouse gas layer with a quantity of tiny particles of materials characterized by wavelength dependent emissivity or reflectivity… Such materials can include the class of materials known as Welsbach materials. The oxides of metal, e.g., aluminum oxide, are suitable for the purpose.
The greenhouse gases layer typically extends between about seven and thirteen kilometers above the earth’s surface. The seeding of the stratosphere occurs within this layer”
- Direct quote from Page 6 of the source PDF.

“Aluminum Oxide is one metal oxide suitable for the purpose which is relatively inexpensive.
It is presently believed that the particle sizes in the ten to one hundred micron range would be suitable for the seeding purposes. Larger particles would tend to settle to the earth more quickly. The greenhouse gases are typically in the earths stratosphere at an altitude of seven to thirteen kilometers (23,000 ft to 42,000 ft). This suggests that the particle seeding should be done at an altitude on the order of 10 kilometers (33,000 ft). The particles may be seeded by dispersal from seeding aircraft; one exemplary technique may be via jet fuel as suggested by prior work regarding the metallic particles. Once the tiny particles have been dispersed into the atmosphere, the particles may remain in suspension for up to one year.”
- Direct quote from Page 7 to 8 of the source PDF

A bit about the Inventors: David B. Chang of Tustin and I-Fu Shih of Los Alamitos
“David B. Chang of Tustin and I-Fu Shih of Los Alamitos, who both work for Hughes Aircraft Co. in Manhattan Beach, received a patent last month for a controversial method to seed a portion of the atmosphere with certain types of dust particles. These particles would screen out radiation from the sun while allowing heat from the earth's surface to pass through.
"We think it could conteract completely the amount of heating that would be caused by the greenhouse effect," said Chang, who is director of technology for the training and support systems group of Hughes Aircraft, a subsidiary of General Motors-Hughes Electronics Corp.”

I did a little digging and found that Chang and Shih are were still working for Raytheon (the company who bought Hughes Aircraft) as of at least 2005.
Raytheon Technology Today 2005 Issue #2

quote from page 26:
“DAVID B. CHANG and I-FU SHIH:
6849855B1 Method for marking and identifying objects coated with up-conversion material”

IMPORTANT SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
Council on Foreign Relations on Planetary Geoengineering: “Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere”

Chemtrail proof! 1990 US Air Force document!

[edit on (10/25/09) by AllSeeingI]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.
[edit on 25 Oct 09 by Gools]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread513525/pg1

http://chemtrails.wikia.com/wiki/Ch...sbach_Seeding_For_Reduction_Of_Global_Warming

Retired USDA Biologist Francis Mangels on Geoengineering

http://youtu.be/[YOUTUBEIF]9jf_nVLGDTo[/YOUTUBEIF]

welcome haze. it was lonely here a minnit ago.
thanks for your post and concern over the poisons they are spraying on us.

chemtrails are real...I don't care if they are trying to manage AGW, they are spraying elements that will destroy our ability to grow anything in the soil and reduce sunlight so much what will grow won't. this will kill us just as dead as elevated temperatures.

anyone experiencing pulmonary/breathing difficulties absent just a few years ago? I suspect I am but that is subjective (previous cigarette smoker) and probably biased by my research of this subject.

now the problem is convincing everyone the sky used to be blue. extremely sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3lW-TGGlk0

[YOUTUBEIF]X3lW-TGGlk0[/YOUTUBEIF]

Dr. Russell Blaylock explains the dangers of chemicals in chemtrails to your brain and respiratory system..

As Aluminium Oxide is an abrasive material commonly used in sandpaper and industrial grinding/polishing would it not be a bit dodgy adding it to jet fuel ?.

There are large and expensive filters between the tanks and fuel pumps on every aircraft I have ever worked on , jet or piston.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0B8Yi7AZvQ

[YOUTUBEIF]O0B8Yi7AZvQ[/YOUTUBEIF]

Solution: Just like you see on farms, those watering systems extending across the fields, you use an elongated convex lens that is flexible, and keeping a set distance from the ground you fuse the sand together, creating a glass reflecting surface, rather than grains of sand that absorb a lot more than said flat glass.

Well, there goes my rights to that idea.

devilgoob said:

Solution: Just like you see on farms, those watering systems extending across the fields, you use an elongated convex lens that is flexible, and keeping a set distance from the ground you fuse the sand together, creating a glass reflecting surface, rather than grains of sand that absorb a lot more than said flat glass.

Well, there goes my rights to that idea.

Click to expand...

i'd like to be able to plant into that ground...what you propose is a petri dish.

the sun 101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwdWv1S6Lcg

[youtubeif]SwdWv1S6Lcg[/youtubeif]

By some freaky coincidence I just switched on the TV and a programme called Best Evidence on Quest channel is showing an episode on chemtrails/contrails.

Seems that cirrus type clouds caused from jet exhaust can change the amount of solar radiation absorbed/reflected without any added chems , worth watching this episode as it details experiments going back to the 60,s.