NASA Recommends Face-Mask When Viewing Chemtrails 5

NASA’s CATS Eyes Clouds, Smoke and Dust from the Space Station
December 1, 2014
NASA compositeimage

NASA recommends mask for outdoor aerosol viewing

Different types of clouds and aerosols can be found at varying heights in the atmosphere. Depending on their properties and location, they can have varying radiative effects on Earth’s climate system.
Image Credit:  NASA
_____________________

Turn on any local TV weather forecast and you can get a map of where skies are blue or cloudy. But for scientists trying to figure out how clouds affect the Earth’s environment, what’s happening inside that shifting cloud cover is critical and hard to see.To investigate the layers and composition of clouds and tiny airborne particles like dust, smoke and other atmospheric aerosols, , scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland have developed an instrument called the Cloud-Aerosol Transport System, or CATS. The instrument, which launches to the International Space Station in December 2014, will explore new technologies that could also be used in future satellite missions.

NASA hadfield_contrails

NASA misrepresents chemtrails as contrails

The interactions between clouds and aerosols are illustrated in this image, taken by retired astronaut Chris Hadfield onboard the International Space Station. It shows contrails produced by aircraft (bright streaks) over the ocean. Image Credit:  NASA/Chris Hadfield
 _____________________

From space, streaks of white clouds can be seen moving across Earth’s surface. Other tiny solid and liquid particles called aerosols are also being transported around the atmosphere, but these are largely invisible to our eyes. Aerosols are both natural and man-made, and include windblown desert dust, sea salt, smoke from fires, sulfurous particles from volcanic eruptions, and particles from fossil fuel combustion.

Currently, scientists get a broad picture of clouds and air quality conditions in the atmosphere and generate air quality forecasts by combining satellite, aircraft, and ground-based data with sophisticated computer models. However, most datasets do not provide information about the layered structure of clouds and aerosols.

CATS will provide data about aerosols at different levels of the atmosphere. The data are expected to improve scientists’ ability to track different cloud and aerosol types throughout the atmosphere. These datasets will be used to improve strategic and hazard-warning capabilities of events in near real-time, such as tracking plumes from dust storms, volcanic eruptions, and wildfires. The information could also feed into climate models to help understand the effects of clouds and aerosols on Earth’s energy balance.

Clouds and aerosols reflect and absorb energy from the sun in a complex way. For example, when the sun’s energy reaches the top of the atmosphere, clouds can reflect incoming sunlight, cooling Earth’s surface. However, clouds can also absorb heat emitted from Earth and re-radiate it back down, warming the surface. The amount of warming or cooling is heavily dependent on the height, thickness, and structure of clouds in the atmosphere above.

“Clouds are one of the largest uncertainties in predicting climate change,” said Matt McGill, principal investigator and payload developer for CATS at Goddard. “For scientists to create more accurate models of Earth’s current and future climate, they’ll have to include more accurate representations of clouds.”

That’s where a new instrument like CATS comes in. CATS is a lidar – similar to a radar, but instead of sending out sound (sic), lidars use light. CATS will send a laser pulse through the atmosphere towards a distant object like a cloud droplet or aerosol particle. Once the energy reaches the object, some of the energy is reflected back to the lidar receiver. Scientists can calculate the distance between the instrument and the object, based on the time it takes the energy to return to the receiver, thereby determining the altitudes of cloud and aerosol layers. The intensity of this return pulse also allows scientists to infer other properties, such as the composition of clouds, and the abundance and sizes of aerosols,.

In 2006 NASA launched the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations, or CALIPSO, spacecraft—a joint mission between NASA and France’s space agency, the Centre National d’Études Spatiales. CALIPSO carries a lidar that provides vertical distributions and properties of clouds and aerosols along a flight track. However, the CALIPSO lidar has exceeded its three-year prime mission and has been using its backup laser since 2009.

A unique opportunity to continue gathering this type of data presented itself in 2011 when the International Space Station Progam’s NASA Research Office offered scientists at Goddard a mounting location aboard the space station for a new lidar instrument – CATS, and provided the funding for its construction.

Designed to operate for at least six months, CATS has a goal of operating for three years. With beams at three wavelengths (1064, 532, and 355 nanometers), CATS will be used to derive a variety of properties of cloud and aerosol layers. These properties include layer height, layer thickness, and at least coarse information on the type of aerosols and cloud in various atmospheric layers.

CATS will orbit aboard the space station, which flies at an altitude between 230 miles (375 kilometers) and 270 miles (435 kilometers) above Earth’s surface at a 51-degree inclination. This unique orbit path will allow the CATS instrument to observe locations at different times of day and allow scientists to study day-to-night changes in cloud and aerosol effects from space.

Studying clouds and aerosols won’t just help scientists study the climate, it’s also a chance to investigate air quality and how atmospheric particles affect daily life. That can range from volcano ash plumes, to dust storms, to pollution outbreaks, to wildfires, like the California Rim Fire in September 2013 that choked Yosemite National Park during the busy Labor Day weekend. These particles pose health risks to populations, especially to the medically vulnerable,  By infusing CATS data directly into aerosol models, data from CATS can make a difference in tracking and responding to impacts of similar events in the future.

For more information about CATS, visit: www.nasa.gov/cats or cats.gsfc.nasa.gov

For more information about the space station, visit: www.nasa.gov/station

Heather Hanson and Kate Ramsayer

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD

Power Point on Weather Modification and Advanced Weapons Technology 7

Al Gore Says the Science in Global Warming is Settled

Al Gore Says the Science in Global Warming is Settled

WEATHER MODIFICATION
Test Technology Symposium ‘97
Advanced Weapon/Instrumentation Technologies
John Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory – PDF

_________________________________________________

We must now wake up to consider that weather weapons are being used as global extortion to convince populations they must pay a carbon tax to keep the climate under control.

_________________________________________________

Phillips Power Point Presentation (PDF)

______________________________________________

The promotion of CO2 as the cause for Global Warming and the development of the National Climate Modification and weather Weapons Programs began virtually at the same time in the early 1960’s.

The covert program of jet aerosol climate modification began most intensely in the early 1990’s and coincided with the IPCC and  Al Gore’s scare tactics that warned of rising sea levels if Global Warming passes the tipping point.

While complaints of massive aerosol geoengineering and climate modification operations were noted by citizens and ignored by Congress,  the IPCC and international actions on climate change were ramping up.

While ignoring the military’s climate modification program in plain sight,  the IPCC and Al Gore held sessions on the dangers of climate change with suggestions that a global carbon tax could fix the CO2 problem.

1964 Cartoon on Tyros Satellite Weather modification

A cartoon from the September, 1964 edition of the official Weather Bureau employee magazine, “TOPICS”, reveals ambition to control the weather in addition to tracking it.

TOPICS, the official Weather Bureau employee magazine,

  • 1990: HAARP Ionospheric Heater Online
  • 1990-1992: Citizen Complaints of sudden increase in frequency of persistent jet contrails nicknamed “chemtrails”
  • 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, entering into force 21 March 1994.
  • 1995: The term “preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (also called avoiding dangerous climate change) first appeared in a policy document of a governmental organization, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995.

Neither the media or climate scientists asked if the military’s program could be contributing to climate change – even while public domain documents confirmed that “owning the weather” is a well documented military objective.

The evidence is robust that many storms and hurricanes since 2000 have been manipulated with massive deployments of geoengineering aerosols in combination with probable involvement of electromagnetic climate weapons.

We must now wake up to consider that weather weapons are being used as global extortion to convince populations they must pay a carbon tax to keep the climate under control.

Phillips Laboratory was a research and development organization operated by the United States Air Force Materiel Command. In 1997, the Laboratory was merged into the Air Force Research Laboratory as the Space Vehicles and Directed Energy Directorates. It was located at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico.  The Laboratory was named after Gen Samuel C. Phillips, a former Director of the Apollo Manned Lunar Landing Project.[1]

Air Force Space Command – SPACE AND MISSILE SYSTEMS CENTER
The Space and Missile Systems Center, a subordinate unit of the Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., is the center of technical excellence for researching, developing and purchasing military space systems. The center is also responsible for on-orbit, check-out testing, sustainment and maintenance of military satellite constellations and other Department of Defense space systems.  The center is located at Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, Calif. – Major units, staff directorates and programs include:  Military Satellite Communication Systems Wing
Plans for, acquires and sustains space-enabled, global communications capabilities to support national objectives.

Air Force Material Command
Note: AFMC is currently restructuring from 12 to five centers. This factsheet will be updated by mid-August 2012.  With headquarters at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Air Force Materiel Command is a major command created July 1, 1992. The command conducts research, development, test and evaluation, and provides acquisition management services and logistics support necessary to keep Air Force weapon systems ready for war.  Mission:  Deliver war-winning: Technology , Acquisition, Test, Sustainment, expeditionary capabilities to the warfighter

Historical timeline of climate change politics

  • 1969, on Initiative of US President Richard Nixon, NATO tried to establish a third civil column and planned to establish itself as a hub of research and initiatives in the civil region, especially on environmental topics.[6] Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nixons NATO delegate for the topic[6] named Acid Rain and the Greenhouse effect as suitable international challenges to be dealt by NATO. NATO had suitable expertise in the field, experience with international research coordination and a direct access to governments.[6] After an enthusiastic start on authority level, the German government reacted sceptical.[6] The initiative was seen as an American attempt[6] to regain international terrain after the lost Vietnam War. The topics and the internal coordination and preparation effort however gained momentum in civil conferences and institutions in Germany and beyond during the Brandt government.[6]
  • 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment,[6] leading role of Nobel Prize winner Willy Brandt and Olof Palme,[19] Germany saw enhanced international research cooperation on the Greenhouse topic as necessary[6]
  • 1978 Brandt Report, the greenhouse effect dealt with in the energy section[20]
  • 1979: First World Climate Conference [21]
  • 1987: Brundtland Report[20]
  • 1987: Montreal Protocol on restricting ozone layer-damaging CFCs demonstrates the possibility of coordinated international action on global environmental issues.
  • 1988: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change set up to coordinate scientific research, by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the “risk of human-induced climate change”.
  • 1990: HAARP Ionospheric Heater Online
  • 1990-1992: Citizen Complaints of sudden increase in frequency of persistent jet contrails nicknamed “chemtrails”
  • 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, entering into force 21 March 1994
  • 1995: The term preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (also called avoiding dangerous climate change) first appeared in a policy document of a governmental organization, the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995.[22]
  • 1996: European Union adopts target of a maximum 2°C rise in average global temperature
  • 25 June 1997: U.S. Senate passes Byrd–Hagel Resolution rejecting Kyoto without more commitments from developing countries [23]
  • 1997: Kyoto Protocol agreed
  • 2001: George W. Bush withdraws from the Kyoto negotiations
  • 2005, 2/16: Kyoto Protocol comes into force (not including the US or Australia)
  • 2005: first carbon emissions trading scheme (EU) implemented
  • July 2005: 31st G8 summit has climate change on the agenda, but makes relatively little concrete progress
  • November/December 2005: United Nations Climate Change Conference; the first meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, alongside the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP11), to plan further measures for 2008–2012 and beyond.
  • July 19, 2006: In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed forming the Climate Action Board, a new, centralized authority under his direct control that would be responsible for implementing one of the nation’s most far-reaching initiatives to curb global warming. California ranks 12th in the world in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, however its regulatory actions tend to have far-reaching effects throughout the U.S.[24]
  • October 30, 2006: The Stern Review is published. It is the first comprehensive contribution to the global warming debate by an economist and its conclusions lead to the promise of urgent action by the UK government to further curb Europe’s CO2 emissions and engage other countries to do so. It discusses the consequences of climate change, mitigation measures to prevent it, possible adaptation measures to deal with its consequences, and prospects for international cooperation.
  • June 26, 2009: U.S. House of Representatives passes the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the “first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.”[25]

Leaked AR5 SOD Challenges IPCC Scientists to Stop Cherry-Picking Data 1

 

Climate sensitivity in the AR5 SOD

Original Article Here – Posted on December 19, 2012

by Judith Curry

By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce?  – Matt Ridley

Chapter 12 of the SOD includes the discussion on sensitivity (download chapter here).  The main summary conclusion on equilibrium climate sensitivity is stated as follows:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 2°C–4.5°C, and very likely above 1.5°C. The most likely value is near 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than about 6°C–7°C is very unlikely.

Compare this statement with the corresponding statement in the AR4 (SPM, p 12):

It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.

Essentially no change, other than placing an upper limit.  In the AR5 SOD, refer to Figure 1 Box 12.2 on p 153).  This figure includes substantially more sensitivity estimates than did the AR4.  A quick eyeball of the figure shows substantial density below 2C and even below 1.5C.  What is the rationale for ‘very unlikely’ below 1.5C?  It seems to be tied to the GCM climate model results (second panel from the top on the figure).  Hence it seems that the large coupled global climate model simulations are given the predominant weighting in the assessment. The problems with this strategy were discussed in my Uncertainty Monster paper.

Matt Ridley and Nic Lewis

Matt Ridley has an article in the WSJ entitled Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change.  Excerpts:

Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in “radiative forcing” (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC’s current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).

 Nic Lewis has provided an extensive post at Bishop Hill outlining his arguments, entitled Why doesn’t the AR5 SOD’s climate sensitivity range reflect its new aerosol estimates?   Its an extensive post, here is the key point:
.

Previous IPCC reports have just given estimates for radiative forcing (RF). Although in a simple world this could be a good measure of the effective warming (or cooling) influence of every type of forcing, some forcings have different efficacies from others. In AR5, this has been formalised into a measure, adjusted forcing (AF), intended better to reflect the total effect of each type of forcing. 

The main difference between the AF and RF measures relates to aerosols.  Table 8.7 of the SOD summarises the AR5 RF and AF best estimates and uncertainty ranges for each forcing agent, along with RF estimates from previous IPCC reports. The terminology has changed, with direct aerosol forcing renamed aerosol-radiation interactions (ari) and the cloud albedo (indirect) effect now known as aerosol-cloud interactions (aci).

Table 8.7 shows that the best estimate for total aerosol RF (RFari+aci) has fallen from −1.2 W/m² to −0.7 W/m² since AR4, largely due to a reduction in RFaci, the uncertainty band for which has also been hugely reduced. It gives a higher figure, −0.9 W/m², for AFari+aci. However, −0.9 W/m² is not what the observations indicate: it is a composite of observational, GCM-simulation/aerosol model derived, and inverse estimates. The inverse estimates – where aerosol forcing is derived from its effects on observables such as surface temperatures and OHU – are a mixed bag, but almost all the good studies give a best estimate for AFari+aci well below −0.9 W/m²: see Appendix 1 for a detailed analysis.

To find the IPCC’s best observational (satellite-based) estimate for AFari+aci, one turns to Section 7.5.3 of the SOD, where it is given as −0.73 W/m² with a standard deviation of 0.30 W/m². That is actually the same as the Table 8.7 estimate for RFari+aci, except for the uncertainty range being higher. 

But one expert on the satellite observations, Prof. Graeme Stephens, has stated that AFaci is at most ‑0.1 W/m², not ‑0.33 W/m² as implied by the IPCC’s best observationally-based estimates: see here and slide 7 of the linked GEWEX presentation. 

The main implication is this.  If only GHG forcing is used, without aerosols, the surface temperature in the last decade or so is about 0.3-0.4C higher than observations; adding in aerosols has a cooling effect of about 0.3-0.4C (and so cancelling out a portion of the GHG warming), providing a fairly good match between the climate model simulations and the observations. If the aerosol effect is too large, then it is inferred that the model response to GHG forcing is also too large.

The climate models have an aerosol forcing that is too large.  The aci effect (associated with clouds) is either specified in the model as forcing, or the model allows the aerosols to interact directly with the cloud microphysical processes.  There are problems with both methods.

Here is a quick summary of the issue:  The effects of aerosols on clouds consist of three linked elements.  Increased numbers of aerosols provide additional locations for droplet nucleation and, all else being equal, result in clouds with more and smaller droplets hence being more reflective to solar radiation (a cooling effect).  The increased number of smaller droplets is hypothesized to hinder the formation of rain because more smaller droplets do not collide and coalesce into precipitation as efficiently.  Suppression of precipitation leads to longer lived clouds that reflect solar radiation back to space.  While this sequence aerosol-cloud effects is easily understood and widely accepted, in many cloud systems the cloud dynamics has a dominant effect over aerosol/microphysical effects, and there is scant observational evidence for a large value of aci in real clouds. Climate models that include these aerosol-cloud interactions fail to include a number of buffering responses, such as rainfall scavenging of the aerosols and compensating dynamical effects (which would reduce the magnitude of the aci cooling effect).

So, recent research is narrowing the range of uncertainty of the aci, and overall reducing the magnitude of the aci effect.  But most climate models still include the inappropriately large values of aci.  It is difficult to then avoid the conclusion that the model-based sensitivity analyses (and observationally based analyses that use large values of aci) produce GHG equilibrium sensitivity values that are too large.

Nic Lewis in the post at BishopHill does a very nice empirically based sensitivity analysis following the general methodology of the Gregory et al (2002) heat balance change derived value of the equilibrium climate sensitivity, determining a value of ECS of 1.6-1.7C.  While there are some necessary assumptions in empirically based sensitivity analyses that I am not entirely comfortable with, the qualitative conclusion made by Nic Lewis seems robust:  lower values of ECS seem justified in view the reduce values of aci.

Over juiced cloud and water vapor feedback (?)

While the direct GHG forcing is well understood (the skydragons haven’t come up with anything convincing),  I suspect that the culprits are the water vapor feedback and/or the cloud feedback.  The atmospheric dynamical core treats water vapor and moist thermodynamics in the manner of numerical weather prediction models, where small approximations don’t make much of a difference.  However at longer timescales these errors can accumulate in a systematic direction.

While I need to get around to actually publishing this, here in a nutshell is what I think is wrong with climate model simulations of water vapor feedback.  There are three simplifications  that concern me (note, if better documentation on these issues existed it would be easier to document these):

1.  Oversimplified moist thermodynamics.  A section from my book Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans on conserved moist thermodynamic variables is posted [here].   As far as I can tell, climate models use the equivalent potential temperature, rather than the entropy potential temperature.  Read the section from my book to see the approximations that are being made here.  While it is difficult to reason through what any change to the equations would actually result in terms of radiation balance given all the nonlinearities, use of entropy potential temperature would tend to cooler upper troposphere and altered water vapor and clouds.

2.  Saturation vapor pressure over ice  at very cold temperatures.  At the cold temperatures of the tropical upper troposphere and stratosphere, it is not clear that correct values of the saturation vapor pressure are being used.  This would influence both the water vapor and cloud water content in the atmosphere.

3.  Atmospheric continuity equation ignores changes in water vapor content.  Note:  this ties into the argument that Anastassia Makarieva has been making.  I don’t know how to reason through in a simple way the implications of this for water vapor feedback since this would tie into the atmospheric dynamics in a fundamental way (both large scale and convective scale).

A post at WUWT by Forest Mims  points out the SOD failed to cite the von der Haar et al. (2012) paper that finds no global trend in water vapor path from satellite data

Thomas H. Vonder Haar, Janice L. Bytheway and John M. Forsythe. Weather and climate analyses using improved global water vapor observations. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L15802, 6 PP., 2012.doi:10.1029/2012GL052094.

One of the more interesting chapters in the AR5 is chapter 7 on Clouds and Aerosols.  Their main conclusion re cloud forcing:

The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types is likely (>66% chance) positive, although a negative feedback (damping global climate changes) is still possible. We assign a very likely range of −0.2 to 1.4 W m–2 K–1 for the cloud feedback parameter. This conclusion is reached by considering a plausible range for unknown contributions by processes yet to be accounted for, in addition to those occurring in current climate models. The cloud feedback remains the most uncertain radiative feedback in climate models. Observations alone do not currently provide a robust, direct constraint, but multiple lines of evidence now indicate positive feedback contributions from changes in both the height of high clouds and the horizontal distribution of clouds. Additional feedback from low cloud amount is also positive in most climate models, but that result is not well understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so confidence in it is low.

The key point is this.  The cloud forcing values are derived from climate models; we have already seen that climate models have some fundamental problems in how clouds are treated (e.g. aerosol-cloud interactions, moist thermodynamics).  So, climate model derived values of cloud forcing should be taken with a grain of salt.  Empirically based determinations of cloud forcing are needed.  At AGU, I spoke with a scientist that has completed such a study, with the paper almost ready for submission.  Punchline:  negative cloud feedback.

JC summary:  The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.

Chronology of US Patents for Spraying Atmospheric Aerosols 19

By Lorie Kramer original post   – July 30, 2003

Patently Obvious: A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies

The history of interest in aerosol and weather related technologies and devices is evident when a list of related patents is compiled and examined, even a partial list. The following patents are all verifiable, along with additional information that can be found by reading the referenced patents included in the documentation.

1225521 – May 8, 1917 – Protection From Poisonous Gas in Warfare

Referenced in 4704942 – Charged aerosol
“A method of defending against a warfare cloud of toxic aerosol utilizes a charged defensive aerosol which is sprayed into the cloud. The defensive aerosol is made of a defensive agent which may be chemically or biologically active.”

1302332 – April 29, 1919 -Toy Machine Gun – F.V. Du Pont

Referenced in – 4141274 which is for a smoke generator,
which evolved into the particle and aerosol devices in use today.


Patent information can be found by visiting the    United States Patent and Trademark Office    and   Free Patents Online


1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1619183 – March 1, 1927 – Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
1631753 – June 7, 1927 – Electric Heater – Referenced in 3990987
1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
1928963 – October 3, 1933 – Electrical System And Method
1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2409201 – October 15, 1946 – Smoke Producing Mixture
2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator

 

2480967 – September 6, 1949 – Aerial Discharge Device

2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 – October 9, 1951 – Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 – April 8, 1952 – Production of TiO2 Pigments – Referenced in 3899144
2614083 – October 14, 1952 – Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 – March 31, 1953 – Smoke Generator
2688069 – August 31, 1954 – Steam Generator – Referenced in 3990987
2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 – July 30, 1957 – Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel – Referenced in 3990987
2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 – October 13, 1959 – Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2986360 – May 30, 1962 – Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
2963975 – December 13, 1960 – Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 – March 24, 1964 – Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator – Referenced in 3990987
3127107 – March 31, 1964 – Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals
3131131 – April 28, 1964 – Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversions

3174150 – March 16, 1965 – Self-Focusing Antenna System

3234357 – February 8, 1966 – Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
3274035 – September 20, 1966 – Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
3300721 – January 24, 1967 – Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
3313487 – April 11, 1967 – Cloud Seeding Apparatus
3338476 – August 29, 1967 – Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers – Referenced in 3990987
3410489 – November 12, 1968 – Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
3429507 – February 25, 1969 – Rainmaker
3432208 – November 7, 1967 – Fluidized Particle Dispenser
3441214 – April 29, 1969 – Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
3445844 – May 20, 1969 – Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
3456880 – July 22, 1969 – Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
3518670 June 30, 1970 – Artificial Ion Cloud
3534906 – October 20, 1970 – Control of Atmospheric Particles
3545677 – December 8, 1970 – Method of Cloud Seeding
3564253 – February 16, 1971 – System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
3587966 – June 28, 1971 – Freezing Nucleation
3601312 – August 24, 1971 – Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipatation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3608810 – September 28, 1971 – Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
3608820 – September 20, 1971 – Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
3613992 – October 19, 1971 – Weather Modification Method
3630950 – December 28, 1971 – Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
USRE29142 – This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
3659785 – December 8, 1971 – Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
3666176 – March 3, 1972 – Solar Temperature Inversion Device
3677840 – July 18, 1972 – Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use
3722183 – March 27, 1973 – Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
3769107 – October 30, 1973 – Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
3784099 – January 8, 1974 – Air Pollution Control Method
3785557 – January 15, 1974 – Cloud Seeding System
3795626 – March 5, 1974 – Weather Modification Process
3808595 – April 30, 1974 – Chaff Dispensing System
3813875 – June 4, 1974 – Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmopsphere
3835059 – September 10, 1974 – Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
3835293 – September 10, 1974 – Electrical Heating Aparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors – Referenced in 3990987
3877642 – April 15, 1975 – Freezing Nucleant
3882393 – May 6, 1975 – Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
3896993 – July 29, 1975 – Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
3899129 – August 12, 1975 – Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
3899144 – August 12, 1975 – Powder contrail generation
3940059 – February 24, 1976 – Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 – November 9, 1976 – Smoke generator
3992628 – November 16, 1976 – Countermeasure system for laser radiation
3994437 – November 30, 1976 – Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 – August 16, 1977 – Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
RE29,142 – February 22, 1977 – Reissue of: 03630950 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
4035726 – July 12, 1977 – Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
4096005 – June 20, 1978 – Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
4129252 – December 12, 1978 – Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
4141274 – February 27, 1979 – Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
4167008 – September 4, 1979 – Fluid bed chaff dispenser
4347284 – August 31, 1982 – White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays
4362271 – December 7, 1982 – Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
4402480 – September 6, 1983 – Atmosphere modification satellite
4412654 – November 1, 1983 – Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
4415265 – November 15, 1983 – Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 – September 11, 1984 – Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 – October 9, 1984 – Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 – July 15, 1986 – Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 – January 6, 1987 – Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4643355 – February 17, 1987 – Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
4653690 – March 31, 1987 – Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 – August 4, 1987 – Particulates generation and removal
4686605 – August 11, 1987 – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 – November 10, 1987 – Charged Aerosol
4712155 – December 8, 1987 – Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 – May 17, 1988 – Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 – August 30, 1988 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 – May 16, 1989 – Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 – June 6, 1989 – Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 – August 14, 1990 – Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
4948050 – August 14, 1990 – Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 – March 12, 1991 – Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 – March 26, 1991 – Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
5005355 – April 9, 1991 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5038664 – August 13, 1991 – Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
5041760 – August 20, 1991 – Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
5041834 – August 20, 1991 – Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted
5056357 – October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
5059909 – October 22, 1991 – Determination of particle size and electrical charge
5104069 – April 14, 1992 – Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
5110502 – May 5, 1992 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5156802 – October 20, 1992 – Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
5174498 – December 29, 1992 – Cloud Seeding
5148173 – September 15, 1992 – Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
5245290 – September 14, 1993 – Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
5286979 – February 15, 1994 – Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
5296910 – March 22, 1994 – Method and apparatus for particle analysis
5327222 – July 5, 1994 – Displacement information detecting apparatus
5357865 – October 25, 1994 – Method of cloud seeding
5360162 – November 1, 1994 – Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
5383024 – January 17, 1995 – Optical wet steam monitor
5425413 – June 20, 1995 – Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
5434667 – July 18, 1995 – Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
5441200 – August 15, 1995 – Tropical cyclone disruption
5486900 – January 23, 1996 – Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device
5556029 – September 17, 1996 – Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
5628455 – May 13, 1997 – Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
5631414 – May 20, 1997 – Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
5639441 – June 17, 1997 – Methods for fine particle formation
5762298 – June 9, 1998 – Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather
5912396 – June 15, 1999 – System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
5922976 – July 13, 1999 – Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
5949001 – September 7, 1999 – Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
5984239 – November 16, 1999 – Weather modification by artificial satellite
6025402 – February 15, 2000 – Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 – March 7, 2000 – Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane
6056203 – May 2, 2000 – Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 – August 29, 2000 – Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 – July 24, 2001 – Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 – August 28, 2001 – Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6315213 – November 13, 2001 – Method of modifying weather
6382526 – May 7, 2002 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 – June 25, 2002 – Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 – July 2, 2002 – Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
6520425 – February 18, 2003 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6539812 – April 1, 2003 – System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
6553849 – April 29, 2003 – Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
6569393 – May 27, 2003 – Method and device for cleaning the atmosphere

Fleet of Evergreen Air B-747 Tankers Capable of Large-Scale Aerosol Geoengineering 3

Evergreen Aviation Contracts with US Air Force and Several Government Agencies

The Evergreen Air undated image below shows 21 Boeing 747 jumbo jets out of a total of 40 aircraft presumably waiting for maintenance or possible modification for deployment of geoengineering aerosols.  Northwest Airlines merged with Delta in Jan, 2010 causing the paint job – and maybe more – on those eleven NWA 747’s to be rendered obsolete.

Evergreen Air undated image shows 21 Boeing 747 jumbo jets out of a total of 40 aircraft presumably waiting for maintenance or possible modification for deployment of geoengineering aerosols. Northwest Airlines merged with Delta in Jan, 2010 causing the paint job – and maybe more – on those eleven 747’s to be rendered obsolete

Published Jan, 2011 by Joan Biakov – originally titled “Danger in the Sky: Complete Report with Timeline.”

Evergreen Air is a CIA front company for chemtrail operations within the US, based out of Marana Air Park near Tucson Arizona and McMinville Oregon, near Portland.

Evergreen Aviation, one of the worlds largest private aviation companies admits to weather modification service. On their own website in the Markets section for their New Super Tanker they state Weather modification among other interesting service markets.

Content on the Evergreen Website in 2011: 

“The Evergreen Supertanker is not just limited to fighting fire . It will be a true utilitarian aircraft with the capability to configure to different applications on short notice. This multimission aircraft can support sensitive security and environmental missions. The aircraft’s exceptional drop capabilities, loiter time and size make it an ideal tool to perform challenging homeland security missions, able to neutralize chemical attacks on military installments or major population centers, and help control large, environmentally disastrous oil spills.

In addition, the upper deck of the Boeing 747 provides over 200 square feet of space that could be assigned as a command and control center. EIA possesses an FAA exemption number 1870C that permits the carriage of up to five individuals that are not crewmembers in the upper deck. This area is capable of providing space for command and control components that would assist in sophisticated mapping, incident monitoring and video/communications downlink relay that might require additional personnel over and above the required crew.”

From what airports will Evergreen Air operate?

Evergreen will operate the aircraft from any major airport with sufficient ramp space to load the aircraft. These include civilian bases, joint use civilian/military bases and accessible military bases. Generally, the runway requirements for the Evergreen Supertanker are 8000 feet.

Can the Supertanker fight fires at night, while they are most vulnerable?

The Supertanker utilizes advanced avionics and flies at higher, safer altitudes, which will enable fire agencies the option of fighting fires at night, while they are dormant. (Note: Evergreen Air 747’s has not responded to any wildfires in the US claiming contract disputes with the National Forest Service)

Are there any other markets for the Evergreen Supertanker? Can it operate globally?

Evergreen is studying other applications for the Supertanker. Oil spill containment, chemical decontamination and weather modification are all potential markets for this aircraft. Because the aircraft is pressurized, the Evergreen Supertanker has the capability of any long-range Boeing 747 passenger aircraft. This allows the aircraft to deploy to any international location.

If you want to read up for yourself on this, just go to anonymous searh engine at: gibiru.com,  and enter  “Weather Control”, and then start clicking through the links that come up.  You might find it as surprising as I did.

Here is the bottom line:

Is weather control real?  Yes.

Do we have the technology to create a hurricane, or tornado, or earthquakes?  Yes.

Who has this technology?  The US and Russia. But Russia has been offering the technology for sale.

What specific technologies/techniques can be used to alter the weather and create storms?

Several:   High-energy lasers can be directed into the atmosphere which creates free oxygen (O2), this combined with hydrogen to create H2O – water. Space based lasers are even more effective, and can also create O3 (Ozone) in the process of creating water in the atmosphere. Water is the most essential element in weather. The amount of it at a given point in time at a given location can create wind shifts, rain, (obviously), snow, but a clever use of it can create a tornado, or, over water, a hurricane. Over warm ocean water, it creates a very powerful hurricane, and if created in the right position at the right time, prevailing winds will carry it where you want it to go.

But far more effective than that technology is the HAARP project in Alaska. This uses VLF (Very low frequency) energy pulses bounced off the ionosphere to create extreme weather conditions anywhere in the world they wish to direct it. The Earth has a fundamental resonant frequency of 7.83 hz. Anything that operates at that frequency risks disturbing all aspects of the earth. Weather, earthquakes, etc. It depends upon the amount of power produced. HAARP produces 1.7 gigawatts.

Here are a couple of interesting quotes about it I found on one of the websites I visited:  “The $30 million [Pentagon] project, euphemistically named HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), is made to beam more than 1.7 gigawatts (billion watts) of radiated power into the ionosphere — the electrically charged layer above Earth’s atmosphere. Put simply, the apparatus is a reversal of a radio telescope — just transmitting instead of receiving. It will ‘boil the upper atmosphere’. After [heating] and disturbing the ionosphere, the radiations will bounce back onto the earth in for form of long waves which penetrate our bodies, the ground and the oceans.” [“Angels Don’t Play This HAARP”, page 8]

Let us allow Dr. Begich explain this concept. “… this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth’s atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level, particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art ….” [Page 28]  “… the goal is to learn how to manipulate the ionosphere on a more grand scale than the the Soviet Union could do with its similar facilities. HAARP would be the largest ionospheric heater in the world, located in a latitude most conducive to putting Eastlund’s invention into practice.” [Page 29]  Furthermore, from this northern latitude, the energy could be aimed into the ionosphere so that it would bounce back down to the earth so it would come down wherever the scientists wanted it to come down. The secret was to learn how and where to aim it to hit the earth where they wanted it to hit, creating the type of disaster or weather they desired.

US Patent 5762298: Weather Modification  Satellites to alter solar radiation – “ Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather”, Inventor, Franklin Y.K. Chen, Northport, N.Y. 11768, Issued/Filed Date, June 9, 1998/June 7, 1995.” source

In NEWS1198, “U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real”, we report news articles that Malaysia actually contracted with a Russian Weather Modification company to create a hurricane that would be directed close enough to clear the smoke and smog from Malaysia’s cities without actually coming on to land to create devastation. This Russian company delivered, and Malaysia had clear skies.

Our information also tells us that, not only can hurricanes be created, they can be dismantled should scientists so desire. And, they certainly can be driven on the ocean much like we drive our cars on roadways.  So the question is:

 If hurricanes can be created and dismantled why were devastating storms like Andrew and Katrina allowed to come ashore?  

Why are American scientists allowing extensive damage and lives lost to recent unprecedented storms, since they have the capability to keep these storms away from us?

HAARP can create nuclear-sized explosions without radiation! [Page 38, 62]. This process is protected by patent 4,873,928.

Nick Begich, in his book, “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP” says the greatest concern is that the New Age scientist and the military are so very arrogant in their ignorant, reckless use of focused energy into the ionosphere.  Military scientists talk about “kicking this thing in high gear to see what would happen”!  This attitude is complete arrogance. What if they set off an unintended reaction in the atmosphere that cannot be controlled or stopped?”

Well, if a country can deliver nuclear-like explosions anywhere in the world they wish, without using ICBM missiles and other nuclear delivery systems, then I suppose that makes traditional nuclear weapons arsenals obsolete for warfare purposes, and mostly only good for political posturing and negotiations. That would explain why both Russia and the US were willing to agree to disarmaments, and reductions in their nuclear proliferation. I think maybe that was the first time in human history that countries voluntarily chose to disarm themselves and reduce their ability to conduct war. Given the nature of mankind and his history, it would make much more sense if they had a better card up their sleeves.

Judging by the apparent irresponsible arrogance of the people in charge of it as suggested by Dr. Begich, I wonder who should be in charge of decision-making for this technology. Once a technology is invented, it cannot be ‘un-invented’. It is now there, and some people will try to use it. Most will try to use it to their personal advantage and to support their agendas. Always, it seems that those that want to act in the interest of all mankind lack the same level of energy and determination of those acting in self interest, and so the people that push their way to the top into positions of power and authority rarely act responsibly or altruistically, but rather they act to gain power and wealth to themselves.

Having said that, if we follow the line of reasoning logically, if we accept that current technology allows us to create a hurricane, then we have to ask ourselves who might have started a hurricane like Katrina that specifically destroyed the area where most of our oil refineries are? In whose interest does this serve? Who benefits from this?

Another interesting question: Since we apparently not only have the ability to create a hurricane, and steer it, and even stop it – why did we choose not to stop Katrina from doing the damage it did? Is the information incorrect? Can we start them, but not stop them? Or is there some other reason that Katrina served the purposes of some people? I honestly don’t know. I’m wondering myself.

Here is a chronology of the technological advances that contributed to weather control. The comments are not mine but come from that website that I found. I have to admit – as much as I would like to go back to thinking that the weather is not controllable, It’s hard to ignore this much information on the subject.

TIMELINE

  • 1900: “Tesla applies for patent on a device to ‘Transmit Electrical Energy Through the Natural Mediums.” In 1905, the U.S. Patent Office issue Patent #787,412 for this purpose. I bet it is news to everyone that the technology to transmit electrical power without wires exists, and exists so that the generation and transmission of electricity can be both bountiful and FREE! Of course, a lot of dollars of sales and profit would immediately vanish, so Tesla’s discovery was never made public.
  • 1924: “Confirmation that radio waves bounce off ‘ionosphere 1′ (an electrically charged layer starting at an altitude of 50 kilometers).”
  • 1938: “Scientist proposes to light up night sky by electron gyrotron heating from a powerful transmitter.” The fact that untold numbers of powerful electron heaters are pouring tens of millions of watts of electricity at Extremely Low Frequencies to effect this Weather Warfare is the major reason we are experiencing Global Warming! This warming has nothing to do with any Industrial pollutants or emssions, and certainly not from cow flatulance, as New Age extremists have claimed. New World Order planners are able to make dire predictions and then technologically deliver them!
  • 1940: “Tesla announces ‘death ray’ invention.” Our military evidently has the capability to create a defense shield over our continent by aiming these electron heaters correctly.
  • 1945: “Atomic bomb tests begin — 40,000 electromagnetic pulses to follow.”
  • 1952: “W.O. Schumman identifies 7.83 Hertz the resonant frequency of the Earth”.
  • 1958: “Van Allen radiation belts discovered (zones of charged particles trapped in earth’s magnetic field) 2,000+ miles up. Violently disrupted in the same year.”
  • 1958: “Project Argus, U.S. Navy explodes three nuclear bombs inside Van Allen belt.”
  • 1958: “White House advisor on weather modification says Defense Department studying ways to manipulate charges of ‘earth and sky, and so affect the weather’.” Wow! Did you know that such a department as “Weather Modification” existed in the White House way back in 1952? The mere existence of such an office strongly implies the technology to modify and control the weather existed.
  • 1960: “Series of weather disasters begin.”
  • 1961: “Scientists propose artificial ion cloud experiments. In 1960′s the dumping of chemicals (barium powder, etc.) from satellites and rockets began.”
  • 1961-62: “U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. create many electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) in the atmosphere. 300 megatons of nuclear devices deplete ozone layer by about 4%.” Hmm, ozone layer depletion was intentionally created by both Russian and American governments by nuclear detonations? They not only knew about it, they measured the extent of the depletion and the time it lasted. Therefore, do you think it just might be possible that, once again, we have the situation where a dire prediction is made, with the knowledge that their scientists can actually make it happen?!
  • 1962: “Launch of Canadian satellites and start of stimulating plasma resonances by antennas within the space plasma.”
  • 1966: “Gordon J.F. MacDonald publishes military ideas on environmental engineering.”
  • 1960′s: In Wisconsin, U.S. Navy Project Sanguine lays extremely low frequency (ELF) antennae.” We are told that the Navy needed this ELF capability to communicate with their submarines in a way that would be secure from enemy attack, a claim with which we do not argue. However, is it also possible that this ELF antennae may serve a dual purpose, of also helping to control the weather?
  • 1968: “Moscow scientists tell the West that they have pinpointed which pulsed magnetic field frequencies help mental and physiological functions and which frequencies do harm.” The very idea that a wicked totalitarian government serving Antichrist could know how to manipulate thought processes by the use of electromagmetic pusles is one of the most frightening thoughts imaginable! This little incident also shows the unusual cooperation between Russia and America at the height of the Cold War! Such cooperation constitutes proof of our claim that Russia has cooperated with the Western Powers since the beginning, in 1917, to stage the mock battle of Thesis battling Antithesis to produce the Synthesis system of Antichrist called the New World Order.
  • 1972: “First reports on ‘ionospheric heater’ experiments with high frequency radio waves at Arecibo [Alaska]. A 100 megawatt heater in Norway built later in the decade can change the conductivity of the auroral ionosphere.” Now, you are getting close to being able to control the weather. When you can manipulate the conductivity of the auroal ionosphere, where weather systems operate and originate, you are close to controlling the weather. Note the date here, at which time this technology was realized: 1972.
  • 1973: “Documentation that the launch of Skylab ‘halved the total electron content of the ionosphere for three hours’ (by rocket exhaust gases).”
  • 1974: “United Nations General Assembly bans environmental warfare.” We reported on this terrible treaty in NEWS1196, “U.N. Treaty Proves Weather Control Is Real”. You do not need a treaty banning Weather Warfare unless such technology already exists and has been proven effective. This means that this Weather Warfare technology has been fine tuned for 24 years.
  • 1974: “High frequency experiments at Plattsville, Colorado Arecibo, Puerto Rico, and in Armidale, New South Wales. These experiments heated the ‘bottom side of the ionosphere.”
  • 1974: “Experiments — airglow brightened by hitting oxygen atoms in ionosphere with accelerated electrons.”
  • 1975: “Stanford professor Robert Helliwell reports that very low frequency (VLF) from power lines is altering the ionosphere.” I remember this report well, as I scoffed at the idea that power lines could have that kind of effect on this huge earth. I never thought of the fact that the reason they could have this kind of effect is that they are just the right kind of frequency to affect the earth.
  • 1975: “U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson forces the Navy to release research showing that extremely low frequency (ELF) transmissions can altar human blood chemistry.” Once again, this technology begins to hit very close to home, does it not? When an enemy can altar my blood chemistry by aiming ELF transmissions at me, I can be destroyed with no knowledge of what is happening to me, or who is doing such lethal damage. Can you also sense the possibilty of control of an entire population, without the people ever being aware they are being manipulated?!
  • 1975: “U.S. Senator Pell, Senate Subcommitted, urges that weather and climate modification work should be overseen by a civilian agency answerable to the U.S. Congress. Didn’t happen.” In NEWS1196, we report that Senator Pell urged the United States to sign this United Nations treaty banning Weather Warfare. It sounds like Pell was very concerned about the use and misuse of this technology, even though he is fully aware of the New World Order Plan and has acted to support it for many years.
  • 1975: “Soviets begin pulsing ‘Woodpecker’ extremely low frequency (ELF) waves at key brainwave rhythms. Eugene, Oregon, was one of the locations where Woodpecker was aimed, and where people were particularly affected.” Once, again, I am extremely agitated to discover that an enemy can destroy me either biologically or mentally from a distance, without me being aware of it.
  • 1976: “Drs. Susan Bawin and W. Ross Adey show that nerve cells are affected by ELF fields.”
  • 1979: “Launch of NASA’s third High-Energy Astrophysical Observatory causes large scale, artificially induced depletion in the ionosphere. The plasma hole was caused by ‘rapid chemical processes’ between rocket exhaust and the ozone layer. The ionosphere was significantly depleted over a horizontal distance of 300 km for some hours.”
  • 1985: “Bernard J. Eastlund applies for patent ‘Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere’. (First of three Eastlund patents assigned to ARCO Power Technologies, Inc.)”
  • 1986: “U.S. Navy Project Henhouse duplicates the Delgado (Madrid) experiment — very low level, very low frequency pulsed magnetic fields harm chick embryos.”
  • 1980′s: “In the latter part of the decade, the U.S. begins the network of Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) towers, each to generate Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves …” IN NEWS1196, we reported that the GWEN towers created a high level electromagnetic dam in the atmosphere in the American Midwest that created the rain for 40 days and nights in 1993. GWEN towers were located right where the rain came down in such a Biblical type deluge. Furthermore, we showed a map of the United States where you could see the GWEN towers and where they were located. We found it extremely interesting that these towers were also located along the San Andreas fault in Califormai and Nevada, where all these earthquakes of the past decade have been occurring!
  • 1987-1992: “Other ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI) scientists build on Eastlund patents for development of new weapon capabilities.”
  • 1994: “Military contractor E-systems buys APTI, holder of Eastlund patents and contract to build the biggest ionospheric heater in the world, the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP). Even though construction of HAARP towers in Alaska began before this date, this was the time the decision was made to make it as large as it is now today, over 40 acres of ELF towers.
  • 1994: “Congress freezes the funding on HAARP until planners increase the emphasis on earth penetrating tomography uses, for nuclear counterproliferation efforts.” Once again, we have to wonder if this technology might be used to create earthquakes, as well as monitor compliance with nuclear test ban treaties.
  • 1995: “Congress budgets $10 million for 1996, under “nuclear counterproliferation’ efforts for HAARP project.” At least now we know that the U.S. Government is in firm control of HAARP, the same government driving us full speed into the global government of Antichrist, known as the New World Order.
    1994-6: “Testing of first stage of HAARP equipment continues …”
  • 1996: HAARP planners to test the earth penetrating tomography applications by modulating the electroject at ELF frequencies.” Let’s see, were there any severe or unusual earthquakes, or series of earthquakes, in 1996? We shall study this and get back to you.
  • 1998: “Projected date for fully operating HAARP system.” We have had the most unusual severe weather in 1997 and 1998. It is no coincidence that the onset of this unprecedented weather coincided with the completion of the HAARP system. Now, scientists can create and control all types of weather, especially disasters.

________________________________________________________

Resources:

Weather Control / Warfare

“THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES” — Part 2 — Prophetic Line-up!

More Prophetic Implications of Other Countries Having Greater Scalar Weaponry Than We Do. Lineup of nations possessing superior scalar weaponry are nations God gives a prominent role in the End Times!

Cliff Carnicom: Images of Aerosol Deployment Reveal Mysterious Anomalies 3

“AEROSOL ANOMALIES”
Posted on Behalf of the Submitters
by
Clifford E Carnicom – CarnicomInstitute.corg – Apr 17 2008

During the past month, two individuals have submitted a series of photographs to me that depict unusual airborne forms.  To my knowledge, neither of these individuals is in contact with the other.  The photographs are stated to be original.  In both cases, the photos shown here are reported to have taken place in the midst of heavy aerosol operations over the respective geographic regions.

The photos in both cases show unusual ring-shaped or disc-like objects.  The photos in one case are quite clear and remarkable.  The fact that the second set was even captured is also fortunate.  A statement from the photgrapher in each case will follow the images that have been submitted.

More…

Cliff Carnicon on Magnetics, Aerosols and HAARP VLF Pulsing Reply

MAGNETICS, AEROSOLS & VLF
Clifford E Carnicom
Santa Fe, NM
Apr 13 2003

HAARP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(NOTE REFERENCES TO ELF-VLF PULSE PROPAGATION
FROM 30Hz TO 30KHz)

(
Credit to: Weapons of Total Destruction Site
http://www.viewzone.com/haarp.exec.html)
 


Magnetometer Pulse Data Logged 040503 at approx. 0845-2210
X Axis : Observation No. (1 per minute)
Y Axis : Volts   


VLF Pulse Data Logged 040503 at approx. 1207-1225
X Axis : Observation No. (1 per second)
Y Axis : Frequency in KHz.

There appears to be an increasingly obvious connection between the existence of aerosol banks close to ground level , the existence of extreme variations in local magnetic field intensity and the existence of highly pulsed VLF data.  

April 5 at this location was unusual in the sense that aerosol banks of great extent had dropped closer to ground elevation.  Visibility  was obscured to a level of approximately 15 miles, even amidst what might be characterized as a “sunny” day.  The level of particulate concentration in the atmosphere is now high enough that the direct presence of aircraft at the time of the banks is not a requirement.  The appearance of high winds that accompany such aerosol banks is also a common phenomenon.  Thermal instabilities caused by magnetic variations within a plasma is also a topic worthy of further discussion. Please also refer to the interest expressed in the topic of ‘precipitation of particulates’ using ELF-VLF within the HAARP Executive Summary.

More…

False Data Justifies Spraying Sulfuric Aerosols to Save the Arctic Ice-Sheets Reply

False Data Justifies Spraying Sulfuric Aerosols to Save the Arctic Ice-Sheets

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
September 3, 2012

Under the Arctic ice-sheets are supposed more than 400 billion metric tons of carbon that is assumed to slowly seep out with methane as the effects of global warming continue. The permafrost of the Antarctic has nearly the same amount stored in the frozen soil.

Methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 and would have drastic effects on the temperature of the earth, say alarmists like Jemma Wadham, professor of Glaciology at the U.K.’s University of Bristol. “There’s a potentially large pool of methane hydrate in part of the Earth where we haven’t previously considered it.
Depending on where that hydrate is, and how much there is, if the ice thins in those regions, some of that hydrate could come out with a possible feedback on climate.”

More…