FW:  March 4, 2015

More Documents Support Published Timeline For Deliberate Arctic Warming with Jet Aerosols

CLOUD  researcher at CERN – Jasper Kirkby – has firmly established that jets are “dumping aerosols into the upper atmosphere”

ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WEATHER MODIFICATION BY AIRCRAFT CONTRAILS October, 1970:  Wallace B. Murcray – Geoephysical Institute, U. of Alaska, College, Alaska Abstract:

The possible effect of contrails in modifying the weather is reconsidered in the light of information obtained from ground-level contrails in Alaska. It appears likely that inadvertent cloud seeding by jet aircraft may be of the same order of magnitude as that attained in commercial cloud seeding operations. Further investigation is needed; but in the meantime, the possibility of contrail contamination should be kept in mind when evaluating the results of seeding operations

Selected excerpts:

“The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky. If the con trail were indeed responsible, which is by no means certain, this would constitute definite proof that contrails are capable of a significant effect on local weather, and even possibly on global climate”

“The possible consequences of this are considerable; in fact, it seems probable that one of the projects for modifying the global climate discussed by Fletcher (1965), namely modification of the cloud cover over the North Polar Basin by cloud seeding, is already underway, although the scale is [in 1965] still more modest than he envisioned.”

In 2015, it’s no longer “modest” This is reasonable evidence that contrails that look like “chemtrails” existed prior to the mid 1990’s – albeit on a scale so small the public had little reason to complain about occasional lines in the sky.   But increased population, number of aircraft, the internet and Youtube have thrust the chemtrails issue into a much wider global awareness. Another Document:  Managing Climatic Resources by J.O. Fletcher, from 1969. Fletcher discusses modification of cloud cover over the North Polar Basin by Cloud Seeding.  This seeding operation is quite clearly another geoengineering operation intended to melt the Arctic ice and completely corresponds to what we know if the mission of jet aircraft aerosol dumps. Excerpts of particular interest.

“Still another form of growing pollution, and one whose possible effects have received little study, is the creation of cirrus cloudiness (vapour trails) by the exhaust products of high-flying aircraft.

Increased cloudiness of any form tends to increase the reflectivity (albedo) of the Earth and, according to Bryson’s calculations, a 1% increase in mean albedo would cool the Earth by 1.6OC. However, it should be noted that increased cloudiness at high levels greatly reduces radiative loss to space, and this would have a warming effect on the Earth.  Thus, the dual effects of more or less cloudiness are great, but the direction of the net influence depends on the type and height of the clouds, and whether they are in a dark or sunlit region of the Earth.”  ( Net warming effect also noted as disclamer in Welsbach seeding patent).

Possibilities for Purposeful Influence on Global Climate

“It has for example been noted that the creation of dissipation of high cloudiness has an enormous influence on the heat budget of the atmosphere and of the surface. It is estimated that it would take only sixty C-5 aircraft to deliver 1kg per km2 per day over the entire Arctic Basin (10 to the 7 km2). Thus, it is a large but not impossible task to see such enormous areas.

Assuming that such seeding were effective in creating or dissipating clouds, it is of interest to estimate the effect of such cloud modification on the heat budget of the surface/atmosphere system. It is estimated that the presence of average cloudiness over the Arctic in July decreases the radiative heat loss to space by about 350 billion cal/km2/day from what it would be without clouds. By comparison, total cloud at 500 meters would decrease radiative heat loss by only 500 billion cal/km2 per day., while total cloud at 5000 meters would decrease radiative loss by about 1000 billion cal/km2/per day.”

“These numbers demonstrate not only the enormous thermal leverage that might be exercised by influencing mean cloudiness, but also the range of influence that might be possible, depending on cloud type, height, and its influence on the regional heat budget. This conclusion is further underscored by noting that mean monthly values of radiative heat loss at the surface have been observed to vary by more than 100% in different years at some Arctic stations possibly due to variations in cloudiness.”

Ice free Arctic Ocean

“The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice-free ocean. As was noted earlier, this has been carefully studied by the staff of the Main Geophysical Observatory in Leningrad. The central question is the stability of the ensuing global climatic regime. This question cannot be adequately evaluated until global climate simulation models are better developed and suitable simulations performed. There is also a certain amount of uncertainty in regard to the engineering feasibility of removing the Arctic pack ice. It is possible that the capacity of the present technology may be sufficient to accomplish this task, but this has not been established. Three basic approaches have been proposed ( Fletcher, 1965): (1) influencing the surface reflectivity of the ice to cause more absorption of solar heat; (2) large-scale modification of Arctic cloud conditions by seeding; (3) increasing the inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean.”

International Cooperation

“The management of global climatic resources is a problem shared by all nations. So far, international efforts in climatic research have been directed toward observation and understanding , and cooperation has been good. It is a challenge to political and scientific leadership to preserve this spirit of cooperation as further progress is achieved toward prediction and control.”

These 1970’s document are merely symptomatic and support a robust historical timeline of geoengineering proposals to warm the arctic that began 100 years ago –  became public policy under NASA in 1966 and was later hijacked by the US military. Timeline For Deliberate Warming of the Arctic

1870:  Standard Oil Corp. Inspired Proposals to Geoengineer a Warmer Arctic  –  Standard Oil Co. Inc. was an American oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company.  Established in 1870 as a corporation in Ohio, it was the largest oil refiner in the world.  Its controversial history as one of the world’s first and largest multinational corporations ended in 1911, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that Standard was an illegal monopoly. 

1889: Jules Verne wrote about geoengineering the earth’s climate in 1889 in a sequel to “From the Earth to the Moon” called “The Purchase Of The North Pole”. Verne writes that the Baltimore Gun Club purchased large tracts of the Arctic then used the famous canon from the earth-to-the-moon to tilt the Earth’s axis. The goal was to establish a tropical paradise as a profitable tourist attraction at the North Pole while “improving” the entire global climate.

If Verne correctly predicted that man would travel from the earth to the moon, it should be no surprise that he also predicted that a small group of influential men would consider warming the climate for profit.

1877:  Verne could have been inspired by Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler who proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic back in 1877 – a dozen years before Verne’s “fantastic”story was published and seven years after the formation of Standard Oil.

References:

1. Definition:  “Chemtrails” –  A term published by the DoD as title to a textbook for pilot training at the US Air force Academy: (Click Here) –  (PDF)
2. Wikipedia, “Contrail”  Click Here
3. Global Warming: The 100 year history of Geoenginnering proposals to warm the climate and melt arctic ice – Click Here –  (PDF)
4. Banavar Sridhar and Neil Y. Chen – NASA Ames Research Center, Hok K. Ng – University of California, “Energy Efficient Contrail Mitigation Strategies for Reducing the Environmental Impact of Aviation”  (PDF) 
5. Arctic Melting May Lead To Expanded Oil Drilling 3/2/2015 – http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5664
6. NASA, My NASA Data, “Contrail Watching for Kids”  (PDF)
7. NASA, My NASA Data, “Contrail Studies”  (PDF)
8. NASA, The Contrail Education Project, “Contrail Identification Chart and Formation Guide”  (PDF)
9. NASA, The Contrail Education Project, “Globe Contrail Chart”  (PDF)
10. Cheng Zhou and Joyce Penner, University of Michigan, “Is the indirect forcing by aircraft soot positive or negative”  (PDF)
11.  IPCC, “Soot and Metal Particles”  (PDF)
12.  IPCC, “Aircraft Technology and Its Relation to Emissions” (PDF) 
13. Daniel Rosenfeld – The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and William L. Woodley – Woodley Weather Consultants, “The Double-Sided Sensitivity of Clouds to Air Pollution & Intentional Seeding” (PDF)
14. Peter Spichtinger and Klaus Gierens, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre,“Ice-Supersaturated Regions”  (PDF)
15. The Ozone Hole Inc., “Air Pollution”  (PDF) 
16. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, “Evaluating the Impacts of Aviation on Climate Change”  (PDF) 
17. Wikipedia, “Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory”  (Wikipedia) 
18.  Olivier Boucher, Nature Climate Change 1, 24–25 (2011) doi:10.1038/nclimate1078 “Atmospheric science: Seeing through contrails” (PDF)
19. William R. Cotton, Colorado State University, Weather Modification Association Conference  21 April 2008, Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, “Weather and Climate Engineering”  (Video)
20. Wallace B. Murcray, University of Alaska, “On the possibility of weather modification by aircraft contrails”  (PDF) 
21. William M. Gray, William M. Frank, Myron L. Corrin, and Charles A. Stokes, Atmospheric Science Board, Colorado State University “Weather Modification by Carbon Dust Absorption of Solar Energy”  (PDF)
22. David L. Mitchell and William Finnegan, Desert Research Institute, “Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming”  (PDF)
23. Alan Robock, Allison Marquardt, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, “The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Stratospheric Geoengineering”  – (PDF) 
24. United States Patent 5003186, Hughes Aircraft Company, “Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming” (PDF)
25. John Nissen, Arctic Methane Emergency Group, “AMEG Strategic Plan”  – PDF
26. Anton Laakso, Antti-Ilari Partanen, Harri Kokkola, Ari Laaksonen Kari E J Lehtinen, and Hannele Korhonen, “Stratospheric passenger flights are likely an inefficient geoengineering strategy” Click Here
27. Liz Kalaugher, “Commercial aircraft ‘not viable strategy’ for geoengineering”  (PDF)
28. Ted Goertzel, EMBO Rep. 2010 July; 11(7): 493–499, “Conspiracy theories in science”  Click Here
29. Dr. Arnold Barnes Jr., US Army Test Technology Symposium 1997, “Weather Modification” “US military discusses future of Weather Warfare despite ENMOD ban (PDF)
30. Col Tamzy J. House, Lt Col James B. Near, Jr., LTC William B. Shields (USA), Maj Ronald J. Celentano, Maj David M. Husband, Maj Ann E. Mercer, Maj James E. Pugh, Air Force 2025, August 1996, “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025″ (PDF)
31. Jim Lee, ClimateViewer News, “It was a conspiracy! Military experiments on unsuspecting public” (PDF) 
32. Michael C. Boger, Major, United States Air Force, “Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030″ (PDF)
33. Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, October 8, 2008, “Evaluating the Importance of Aviation on Climate Change”  (PDF)

 

1. http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/03/02/1970-study-says-weather-modification-using-aircraft-contrails-is-possible/