Sensei
Site Admin
Joined: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 535
Location: here, now
|
Posted:
Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:02 pm
Post subject: Chemtrails...The Smoking Gun |
|
|
This is from
Josh.
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the
National Security Agency may have read
this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They
may do this without any judicial or
legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor
protection save to call for the
impeachment of All the Criminals in the White House.
BULLETIN ITEM: Five Star Item For Chemtrails
Dossier: "The Chemtrail Smoking Gun Proof "
July Tuesday 11th 2006 (16h06) : CLIMAGE CHANGE AND
GEOENGINEERING
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=12522
Feature Story - The Chemtrail Smoking Gun - Proof of
Global Geoengineering Projects
illustra/ Lightwatcher Publishing
forward: For the past few years investigators and
researchers have been searching for
hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail
spraying. If one searches GoogleNews
for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals
represented) not one article will be
found. There is simply no coverage on this topic in
the mainstream media.
Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive
proof of government involvement,
funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research,
policy making and implementation of
global atmospheric modification under the
classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the
chemtrail smoking gun we have been looking for.
Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National
Academy of Sciences, a monumental
and in-depth study on global warming and possible
corrective measures (mitigations) was
undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were
senior researchers, faculty,
theoreticians, atmospheric scientists, department
heads and CEO's from a multitude of
prestigious institutions. The Smithsonian, Harvard,
General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale,
World Resources Institute, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, the Secretary
General of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings
Institution, Columbia University, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Princeton University, Brown
University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many
more. This colossal study recalls the
scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan Project,
yet the goals and eventual impacts
of it are far greater.
The Chemtrail Smoking Gun Proof of global
atmospheric geoengineering by: Bruce Conway
"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt in your philosophy."
- Shakespeare
Five years ago I founded the Chemtrails Hall of
Shame web site to document and
investigate the elusive Chemtrail spraying
operations in the skies above my home in the
Pacific NW. The site can be found at:
<
http://www.lightwatcher.comDuring
>
http://www.lightwatcher.com
During this time I have
had the opportunity to work with and befriend
several of the luminaries within this field
of investigation: Diane Harvey, Brian Holmes and a
very special investigator who chooses
to remain anonymous in this article. Each of these
individuals has contributed greatly to
the subject, keeping this topic alive within the
alternative media . These chemtrail
spraying programs, which are apparently being
conducted on a worldwide basis, are evident
to anyone who has the desire to look up and perceive
the evidence. Yet, definitive proof
has remained elusive.
Total denial by governmental authorities, the
shunning of this topic by mainstream media,
the systematic discreditation of researchers,
ongoing coverups by the scientific
establishment, and a coordinated systematic policy
of disinformation has relegated this
topic to the realm of fantasy and paranoid delusion.
Regardless, it continues to go on
above our heads, and has now grown to become the
largest coordinated global engineering
project in the history of our species. How can I
make such a preposterous claim?
Brian Holmes of
http://www.holmestead.ca
www.holmestead.ca has
investigated these
eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of
his efforts, many within Canada and on
the net have become aware of the ongoing spraying
operations. Like other serious
investigators who have studied this phenomena,
Brian's work has been maligned, and there
are ongoing attempts to discredit him and his
sources.
Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian
nicknamed 'Deep Shield' came forward with
specific and detailed information about this
mysterious program, corresponding with him
via e-mail. A transcript of the communications with
Deep Shield and the Shield Project
can be read online at:
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html.
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html.
For those of us who have studied
chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of
the
truth.
Since then we have been able to study, and verify a
number of Deep Shield's primary
claims. The anonymous insider gave Brian's readers
some valuable clues to follow if they
wished to investigate deeper into the history and
hard science of chemtrails. A primary
clue was to investigate the term 'geoengineering.'
One investigator took the clues provided by 'Deep
Shield' and dug in. She eventually
found an N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the
Mitigation of Global Warming. This study
is still available online and is also available in
hardcover. This massive document
validates the insider information provided by Deep
Shield, and has lead to an additional
gold mine of evidence.
This massive research study is entitled: Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel
on Policy Implications of Greenhouse
Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
and the Institute of Medicine. The results were
presented in 1992 and published in book
form in 2000 by the National Academy Press. This 994
page study is the textbook on
greenhouse gasses, global warming, policy decisions
and mitigation's (corrective
measures). Included within is the hard science many
chemtrails researchers have been
searching for: the scientists, agencies,
institutions and corporations involved, cost
factors, chemical formula, mathematical modeling,
delivery methods, policies, recruiting
of foreign governments, acquisition of materials,
and the manufacturing of aerosol
compounds, ect.
This entire volume can presently be read online at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html.
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html.
Keep in mind
that this study is only the tip of the iceberg.
Literally hundreds of papers on related topics have
been published in scientific journals. We don't
expect this featured study to remian online for long
once the cat is out of the bag. So do check it out
soon.
The full involvement of foremost government
agencies, research firms, universities and
private corporations are detailed in this global 'geoengineering'
study. Keep in mind
that this was approved by and funded by Congress. We
expect that this documentation will
bolster the beliefs of most hardcore chemtrail
believers. It will also continue to
undermining what little trust still remains in our
leaders and their institutions. This
documentation proves that they have lied repeatedly
about their involvement and the
existence of chemtrail spraying programs.
It alsp appears that we 'Chemtrail' investigators
have been chasing our tails, being
intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed
disinformation to keep the actual truth just
below the levels of media perception. The real story
has been taking place in broad
daylight, safely concealed under the scientific
umbrella of 'Geoengineering and
intentional climate change.'
Chemtrails are just one of the 'mitigations'
proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once
we began sifting through the numerous studies,
experiments and papers written on
intentional climate change, we found a wealth of
supporting evidence of well funded
global atmospheric modification programs. One such
paper is Geoengineering: A Climate
Change Manhattan Project
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
(Jay Michaelson, published in the
Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January,
1998)
The author makes a very convincing case for the
pressing need of undertaking
geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation,
environmental laws and other
stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly
address the dangers that threaten us
directly and immediately. He writes: "The projected
insufficiency of Kyoto's emission
reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost,
and incentives discussed in part II,
cry out for an alternative to our present state of
climate change policy myopia."
"Geoengineering--intentional, human-directed
manipulation of the Earth's climatic
systems--may be such an alternative. This part
proposes that, unlike a regulatory
"Marshall Plan" of costly emissions reductions,
technology subsidies, and other
mitigation measures, a non-regulatory "Manhattan
Project" geared toward developing
feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change
can meaningfully close the gaps in
global warming and avert many of its most dire
consequences."
"In some ways, this phase has already begun, as
geoengineering has moved from the pages
of science fiction to respectable scientific and
policy journals. [FN127] One of the most
encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation
of vast carbon sinks by artificially
stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron
"fertilizer" in parts of the Earth's oceans.
[FN128] Another proposal suggests creating
miniature, *106 artificial "Mount Pinatubos"
by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into
the upper atmosphere, simulating the
greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in
1991. [FN129]" pp. 105-106,
Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project."
In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:
Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science
Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most
effective global warming mitigation
turned out to be the spraying of reflective aerosol
compounds into the atmosphere
utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft.
This preferred mitigation method is
designed to create a global atmospheric shield which
would increase the planet's albedo
(reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum
and barium oxides, and to introduce
ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.
This method was the most cost effective, and yielded
the largest benefits. It could also
be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of
environmental protection and regulatory
entanglements.
It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that
this mitigation is now being conducted
worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that
our leaders have already embarked on
an immense geoengineering project; one in which they
expect millions of human fatalities,
and consider these to be acceptable losses.
This landmark study; the widespread experimentation
and published papers of atmospheric
theorists and scientists, combined with the visual
evidence that atmospheric mitigations
are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that
Chemtrail spraying has became a
preferred solution to global warming mitigation.
The evidence is all around us. For example; this
past week Boeing Aircraft received an
enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100
Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin
replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s,
the most commonly seen chemtrail spray
plane. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There
has been no mention of the usage of
these aircraft.
Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a
staggering scale, without the impediment of
environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This
grand experiment is being conducted in
full view, while being concealed in plain sight.
----------
The following excerpts detail the preferred
geoengineering Mitigations for reducing
greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from
space. Quoted from: Policy
Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation,
Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel
on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming
Evaluating Geoengineering Options "Several
geoengineering options appear to have
considerable potential for offsetting global warming
and are much less expensive than
other options being considered. Because these
options have the potential to affect the
radiative forcing of the planet, because some of
them cause or alter a variety of
chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because
the climate system is poorly
understood, such options must be considered
extremely carefully. These options might be
needed if greenhouse warming occurs, climate
sensitivity is at the high end of the range
considered in this report, and other efforts to
restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail."
"The first set of geoengineering options screens
incoming solar radiation with dust or
soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere.
The second set changes cloud
abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei
through carefully controlled emissions
of particulate matter."
"The stratospheric particle options should be
pursued only under extreme conditions or if
additional research and development removes the
concern about these problems. The cloud
stimulation option should be examined further and
could be pursued if concerns about acid
rain could be managed through the choice of
materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by
careful management of the system. The third class
increases ocean absorption of CO2
through stimulating growth of biological organisms."
Screening Out Some Sunlight "Another option for
mitigating a global warming would be to
try to control the global radiation balance by
limiting the amount of incoming radiation
from the sun. This could be done by increasing the
reflectivity of the earth, i.e., the
albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of
roofs and surface features would have
some effect, but only a fraction of incident solar
radiation reaches the earth's surface
and a purposeful change in albedo would have more
impact if done high in the atmosphere.
According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in
planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is
sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.
Placing a screen in the atmosphere or
low earth orbit could take several forms: it could
involve changing the quantity or
character of cloud cover, it could take the form of
a continuous sheet, or it could be
divided into many ''mirrors" or a cloud of dust.
Preliminary characterizations of some of
the possibilities that might be considered are
provided below."
Stratospheric Dust "Although the space dust option
does not appear to be sensible,
computations of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust
above 20 to 40 km are of the order of
1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be
generally accepted that volcanic aerosols
remain in the stratosphere for several years
(Kellogg and Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and
Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in the
stratosphere by adding more dust to the
natural stratospheric dust to increase its net
reflection of sunlight."
Mass Estimates "Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate
that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2
g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm
increases the planetary albedo by 12
percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar
flux reaching the surface. Since an
approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is
required, and their Figures 13 and 15
suggest that, at these loadings, the dust effects
may reasonably be extrapolated downward
linearly, estimates will be made by using a dust
loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle
radius of 0.26 µm."
"The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is
distributed between 10 and 30 km in the
stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual
effect on radiative forcing of a
global distribution of additional dust would be
somewhat greater at low than at high
latitudes because more of the sunlight is effective
there for geometric reasons. This
would decrease slightly the equator-to-pole
temperature gradients and might have some
effect on weather intensity. Presumably, this effect
can also be studied with global
climate models."
Delivery Scenarios "Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al.
(1984) suggested that emissions of 1
percent of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation
fleet as particulates, between
40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for
a 10-year period, would change the
planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the
effects of an equivalent doubling of CO2.
They proposed that retuning the engine combustion
systems to burn rich during the
high-altitude portion of commercial flights could be
done with negligible efficiency
loss. Using Reck's estimates of extinction
coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a,
1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 „
1010 kg of particulates, compared
with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon
Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then
estimated that if 1 percent of the fuel of aircraft
flying above 30,000 feet is emitted
as soot, over a 10-year period the required mass of
particulate material would be
emitted. However, current commercial aircraft fleets
seldom operate above 40,000 feet (12
km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating
altitudes will be much shorter than
10 years."
"An alternate possibility is simply to lease
commercial aircraft to carry dust to their
maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute
it. To make a cost estimate, a
simple assumption is made that the same amount of
dust assumed above for the stratosphere
would work for the tropopause (the boundary between
the troposphere and the
stratosphere). The results can be scaled for other
amounts. The comments made above about
the possible effect of dust on stratospheric ozone
apply as well to ozone in the low
stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The
altitude of the tropopause varies with
latitude and season of the year."
"In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million
ton-miles of freight and express, for a
total express and freight operating revenue of
$4,904 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than $1
per ton-mile for freight. If a dust
distribution mission requires the equivalent of a
500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the
delivery cost for dust is $500/t, and ignoring the
difference between English and metric
tons, a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be
delivered each 83 days, (provided
dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times
more than the 1987 total ton-miles will
be required."
"The question of whether dedicated aircraft could
fly longer distances at the same
effective rate should be investigated."
Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach "Independent
studies estimated that an
approximately 4 percent increase in the coverage of
marine stratocumulus clouds would be
sufficient to offset CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978;
Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989)
suggests that the average low-cloud reflectivity
could be increased if the abundance of
cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to
emissions of SO2. It is proposed that
CCN emissions should be released over the oceans,
that the release should produce an
increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only, and
that the clouds should remain at the
same latitudes over the ocean where the surface
albedo is relatively constant and small."
"Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent
increase in CCN would be necessary
to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of
marine stratocumulus clouds by 4
percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud,
which he argues is typical, has a
thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm per day,
and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm,
and he assumes that each droplet is formed by the
coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets.
The rate at which the CCN are depleted by his model
is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently,
about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of
additional CCN would have to be discharged
per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4
percent increase in cloudiness. This
assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would also
remain sufficiently close to saturation
in the vicinity of the CCN that additional cloud
cover would be formed every time the
number of CCN increased."
Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei "With
Albrecht's assumption in mind that
cloudiness in a typical ocean region is limited by
the small number of CCN, we now
extrapolate to the entire globe. On the average,
31.2 percent of the globe is covered by
marine stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If
no high-level clouds are present,
the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is
1.8 „ 1025 CCN/day. The mass of a
CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 „ density, and it is assumed
that the mean radius r is equal to
0.07 „ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987). Because the
density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is
1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is 2.7 „ 10-15 g. The
total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day
is 31 „ 103 t per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to
H2SO4 CCN. To put this number in
perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power
plant emits about this much SO2 in a
year. Consequently, the equivalent emissions of 365
U.S. coal-burning power plants,
distributed homogeneously, would be needed to
produce sufficient CCN."
"Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud
condensation nuclei appears to be a feasible and
low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate
any quantity of CO2 equivalent per
year. Details of the cloud physics, verification of
the amount of CCN to be added for a
particular degree of mitigation, and the possible
acid rain or other effects of adding
CCN over the oceans need to be investigated before
such system is put to use. Once a
decision has been made, the system could be
mobilized and begin to operate in a year or
so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If
the system were stopped, the mitigation
effect would presumably cease very rapidly, within
days or weeks, as extra CCN were
removed by rain and drizzle."
"Several schemes depend on the effect of additional
dust compounds in the stratosphere or
very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such
dust might be delivered to the
stratosphere by various means, including being fired
with large rifles or rockets or
being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air balloons. These
possibilities appear feasible,
economical, and capable of mitigating the effect of
as much CO2 equivalent per year as we
care to pay for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the
tropopause or the low stratosphere with
aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the
mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2 equivalent per
year.) Such systems could probably be put into full
effect within a year or two of a
decision to do so, and mitigation effects would
begin immediately. Because dust falls out
naturally, if the delivery of dust were stopped,
mitigation effects would cease within
about 6 months for dust (or soot) delivered to the
tropopause and within a couple of
years for dust delivered to the midstratosphere."
"Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put
into practice until shortly before
they were needed for mitigation, although research
to understand their effects, as well
as design and engineering work, should be done now
so that it will be known whether these
technologies are available if wanted."
"Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is
the relatively low costs at which some
of the geoengineering options might be implemented."
(end of excerpts) ----------
Following is a partial list of those involved in
this monumental study:
(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS (Chairman),
Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates,
Seattle, Washington
ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE F. CARRIER, T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor
of Applied Mathematics, Emeritus,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors
Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan
THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of
Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of Economics, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut
GORDON H. ORIANS, Professor of Zoology and Director
of the Institute for Environmental
Studies, University of Washington, Seattle
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary
Climate Systems, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United Nations
Conference on Environment and
Development, New York (resigned from panel February
1990)
SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford,
England VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior
Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder,
Tallahassee, Florida
PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished Scientist, The
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station, New Haven
PETER BREWER, Executive Director, Monterey Bay
Aquarium and Research Center, Pacific
Grove, California
RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings
Institution, Washington, D.C.
ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale
University, Economic Growth Center, New
Haven, Connecticut
DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director, Conservation Law
Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts
ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors
Research Laboratories, Warren, Michigan
RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research
Center, Yorktown Heights, New York, and
Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University,
New York
JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General
Manager, Fluorochemicals Division,
E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware
KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for
Environmental Studies, Williams College,
Williamstown, Massachusetts
GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental Science
Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of Physics,
University of California, Berkeley, and
Director, Center for Building Science, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California
EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering
and Public Policy, and Director,
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies,
Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of Economics and Senior
Fellow, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary
Climate Systems, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political
Science, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge
THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department of
Astrophysics and Plasma Physics Laboratory,
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor of Law, Georgetown
University, Washington, D.C. (resigned
from panel October 1990)
GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge
Professor of Applied Mathematics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York
ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University
of New York, Stony Brook
HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of
Atmospheric Physics, Department of
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson
JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography,
Department of Geological Sciences,
Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and
Applications, National Climate Data
Center, Asheville, North Carolina
MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division
Leader, Atmospheric and Geophysical
Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University
of California, Livermore
BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for
the Study of Earth, Oceans, and
Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham
Staff ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director DEBORAH D. STINE,
Staff Officer NANCY A. CROWELL,
Administrative Specialist MARION R. ROBERTS,
Administrative Secretary ----------
Papers of special interest to Chemtrail
Investigators
Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change
Manhattan Project - Stanford
Environmental Law Journal January -
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two
Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory), "The Planet
Needs a Sunscreen" Wall Street Journal, October 17,
1997. -
<
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html
>
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html
Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation -
by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change -
<
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
>
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm
Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of
climate change: A test by an inadvertent
experiment. Science 243:293299
<
http://www.gfdl.gov/%C2%A0gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
>http://
www.gfdl.gov/gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F.
Joos, D. Raynaud, T., Wigley, M.
Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E.
Sanheuza, X., Zhou, P. Jonas, R. Charlson,
H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart,
V. Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J.,
Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal, and D.
Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of
climate change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science
of Climate Change, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 69-131.
<
http://www.gfdl.gov/%C2%A0gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
>
http://www.gfdl.gov/gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L.
Gras, Harshvardhan, G. Kukla, M. P.
McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and
J. Taylor, 1995: Group report: what
are the observed and anticipated meteorological and
climatic responses to aerosol
forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol. 20.
John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.
http://www.gfdl.gov/gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and
model responses. In Aerosols and
Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372
http://www.gfdl.gov/gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.htm
Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities
of the radiative forcing due to large
loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of
Geophysical Research 90(D3):55975613.
<
http://www.gfdl.gov/%C2%A0gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
>
http://www.gfdl.gov/gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html
Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine
Distribution of Alumina (Al2O3):
Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) Effects. Report GMR-4740.
Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research Laboratories,
and paper presented to the American
Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., December
1984.
Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols and
gases in the stratosphere.
Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):2627.
Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects
of particulates from solid rocket
motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research
5(2):7786.
By : ERNST HIMMEL
July Tuesday 11th 2006
_________________
|
|