Mainstream science accepts that trails from jet aircraft are lingering for hours, but claims it is a natural phenomenon
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, July 2, 2010
Scientists now admit that emissions from aircraft are forming artificial clouds that block out the sun, precisely what geoengineering advocates like top eugenicist and White House science advisor John P. Holdren have called for, but the article tries to insinuate that the effect is caused by natural “vapours,” when in reality it can be attributed to chemtrails that contain substances harmful to humans.
“The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 30C. This causes water vapour emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails,” writes Oliver Tree for the Daily Mail.
“Reading University’s Professor Keith Shine, an expert in clouds, said that those formed by aircraft fumes could linger ‘for hours’, depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.”
“Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: “Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases.”
The report also makes reference to a 2009 Met Office study which found that high-level winds did not disperse contrails that later formed into clouds which covered an astonishing 20,000 miles.
Of course, this is no natural phenomenon as the article claims. Ten years ago, contrails from jet aircraft disappeared within minutes, yet apparently we are led to believe that the same substance is now causing the trails to linger for hours and form into clouds. This is impossible without something within the substance having been changed.
Mainstream science and academia has gone from dismissing chemtrails as a fantasy of paranoid conspiracy theorists to now accepting that they exist but claiming that they are natural and not artificially induced.
In reality, chemtrails are the consequence of the agenda to geoengineer the earth in the name of combating climate change, a science vehemently backed by people like John P. Holdren, who in his 1977 book Ecoscience advocated poisoning the water supply to involuntarily sterilize humans as part of a “planetary regime” that would control every aspect of our existence. The fact that such eugenicists are now in control of geoengineering programs that will have a direct impact on our health is alarming.
Geoengineering programs have also been promoted by the Council on Foreign Relations, which is one of the main steering committees behind the implementation of global governance.
A recent report issued by the UK government also calls for the UN to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
Discussion of geoengineering technology is often framed as a future consideration, yet governments are already conducting such programs at an advanced stage.
The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.
One of ARM’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”.
Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”
The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”
U.S. government scientists are already bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.
The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.
“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”
Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who last year began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.
The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”
The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.
The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”
Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.
“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.
Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist – a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation – Doug Parr has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who recently proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geo-engineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.”
Given all the immediate dangers associated with bombarding the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide, along with the unknown dangers of other geo-engineering projects, many people are concerned that “chemtrails” are a secret component of the same agenda to alter the Earth’s eco-system.
The fact that chemtrails are blocking out the sun, which is precisely what the geoengineering advocates call for, strongly indicates that they are an integral part of this dangerous and wide-reaching program.
This graphic proposes, “Spraying aluminum powder and barium oxide into high levels of the atmosphere, again delivered by aircraft, to increase planetary reflectance (albedo) and cloud cover.” High levels of barium have been found in substances associated with chemtrails.
Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, often blanketing the sky in criss-cross patterns, have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda.
In conducting Google searches, one finds discussion, such as this example, of using sulphur dioxide as a jet fuel additive to be dispersed over the world during routine commercial flights.
“I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel,” writes engineer John Gorman, who has conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario.
“We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere,” he adds.
In 2008, a KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.
The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
Indeed, barium oxide has cropped up repeatedly as a contaminant from suspected geoengineering experimentation.
KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.”
One of the accepted truisms of scientific study is the fact that if scientists are proposing an idea, then those scientists with access to the bottomless pit of black-budget secret government funding are already doing it.
It is highly likely that chemtrails are merely one manifestation of “geo-engineering” that is taking place without proper debate, notification or any form of legality, and with a callous disregard for the potential dangers to both our health and our environment.
Could Aluminum, Barium and Other Substances From Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering Programs be Destroying Eco-Systems around the World?
FLASHBACK: What In The World Are They Spraying? Part 1
Michael J. Murphy
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
What would you do if you were told that toxic substances being sprayed into the sky are falling to the ground and decimating eco-systems around the world? This very claim, made by concerned citizens outside the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting last month in San Diego, sparked my interest to investigate further.
The AAAS meeting hosted several top geo-engineering scientists who gathered to discuss the “plausibility” of implementing various geo-engineering programs throughout the world. One of the options addressed was the stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering (SAG) , AKA chemtrail program, where scientists discussed the “plausibility” of spraying aerosol aluminum, barium and other particles into the sky to block the sun as a means to “reduce” the Earth’s temperature. When asked specifically about the potential risks associated with using aluminum in the program as an aerosol, scientists replied by stating that they have not studied much about the risks associated with aluminum and added that something terrible could be found tomorrow that they haven’t looked at. When probed further about the deployment of existing aerosol programs, the scientists stated that no aerosol spraying programs have been deployed to date.
The concerned citizens I met outside the meeting were claiming quite the opposite. They came in protest after witnessing airplanes that they believe are regularly spraying aerosols into the upper-part of the sky. Many from this group have tested and found extremely high levels of aluminum, barium and other substances in their soil, rain, water and snow. Ironically, the substances that they reported finding are the same substances the scientists are “considering” implementing in the various aerosol spraying programs discussed at the meeting. They also believe that these substances are leading to the destruction of eco-systems and are coming from already deployed SAG programs. Due to the severity of this issue and my desire to know the truth, I was led to Shasta County in the Northern part of California to investigate not only the claims of what is being reported in the sky, but also claims of what is in the rain, water, snow and soil from what many residents are saying is the result of SAG programs.
The first stop on this trip led me to Dane Wigington’s beautiful 2000 acre property overlooking Lake Shasta. As we toured his breath-taking land, he pointed to multiple trails that blanketed the sky. He claimed the trails are present on most days above Northern California. Wigington referred to this as a “moderate spraying day”. Like many other residents in Shasta County, Wigington moved to the area to get away from the heavy pollution of Southern California that he grew up with as a child. His dreams of living off the land and becoming one with nature are now coming to a grinding halt as he is focusing his time and energy on the issue of geo-engineering.
Wigington became concerned about SAG when he began to notice dramatic changes in the solar power that he uses to supply his home and property. Owner of one of the largest residential solar systems in Northern California, he began to notice very high declines in solar power. It can be decreased by as much as 60 percent on what he calls “heavy spraying days”. Wigington said, “The trails are literally blocking the sun”. He also went on to say that he regularly samples the fine dust layers on top of his solar panels and other outdoor surface areas and frequently finds very high levels of aluminum and barium. Wigington believes that these are a product of SAG programs.
At the same time as finding decreased solar power, Wigington also began to witness dramatic changes on his property as the trees, grass, insects and wildlife started dying. This led him to get his first rain test just four years ago. The results were shocking as they found aluminum levels at 7 ug/l or 7 parts per billion. Although aluminum can be found around the world in smaller quantities, geo-hydrologists told him that this number was quite high. Since that time, he has had aluminum tests escalate as high as 50,000 percent to 3,400ug/l. That is literally toxic rain. These results prompted him to get additional pH tests from two USDA soil scientists which yielded more shocking results. The pH of the soil was 6.6 in one area and 7.4 in another. This is over 11 times the normal alkalinity of the soil which should be in the range of 5.0 to 5.5. It is important to note the tests were taken in the forest far removed from any highway or industry.
When asked what these changes can do to the ecosystem, Wigington replied by saying that it is devastating. He went on to say, “if this continues, we can only expect to see things get much worse. Not only are we seeing our trees dying here, but also a major decline in our wildlife and fish”. As a matter of fact, Wigington stated that according to The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, the salmon run, once seen in abundance in this area has declined from 769,868 in 2002 to 39,530 in 2009. That is over a 90 percent decline. Amazingly enough, this decline started occurring about the same period of time when residents began to see a dramatic increase in what they believe to be SAG programs. Wigington’s efforts to get these issues and test results addressed has been largely ignored by government agencies and officials.
After a closer look at Wigington’s property, my initial awe of the beauty and breath taking views led to sadness, frustration and anger over the contamination that is literally destroying the eco-system. This led me to investigate further by seeking an expert in biology. I packed up the car and headed north to the breathtaking town of Mt. Shasta. Mt. Shasta has been known for its beauty, clean air and as being the source of water for some bottled water companies. Many travel from around the world to mountain climb and vacation in this beautiful part of Western America.
Francis Mangels, BS in Forestry, Masters in zoology and a retired soil conservationist and wildlife biologist who worked for the U.S. Forest Service for over thirty five years, welcomed me into his beautiful home in the town of Mt. Shasta to discuss the “hidden” crisis that is occurring. Mangels alerted me to the rapid decline of fish in the nearby rivers and streams. Mangels brought me to a nearby creek that had an abundant supply of fish just a few years ago. Because the primary diet of the fish in the creek is aquatic insects, he performed a standard sample method to measure the amount of insects present. The samples he had performed before the alleged aerosol spraying campaign had yielded an average of 1000 aquatic insects. Our sample yielded only 31. This is over a 96% decline from samples taken just a few years ago. Mangels stated that because the fish live off of the insects, they are literally starving. This rapid decline is likely due to changes in the chemistry of the water. The only changes that Mangels is aware of are the dramatic increases of aluminum, barium and strontium which he believes is from SAG programs.
We also took time to test the pH of nearby soil and snow which contained over 10 times the alkalinity of the normal pH. Mangels has evidence that this drastic change in pH is also due to the massive increases of aluminum. He stated that forests, fields and farm ecologies thrive in acidic soils. Aluminum acts as a buffer that increases alkalinity and can decimate ecologies in large amounts. Mangels also pointed out that snow on Mt. Shasta was tested and sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) who found results that contained 61,100 ug/l or parts per billion of aluminum and 83 ug/l of barium. The normal amount of aluminum in the snow at Mt. Shasta is 0.5 ug/l. Drinking water allowable is 50ug/l. That means that the snow on Mt. Shasta has tested at 1200 times more poisonous than water standards allow for aluminum. Mangels said, “Mountain climbers that come from around the world are drinking the poisonous water from the snow on the mountain”. Mangels went on to say that government action is required at just 1000 ug/l of detected aluminum. Although he alerted several government agencies of these findings, no governmental action has been taken to date.
Mengels brought me to several other locations around the town of Mt. Shasta where he tested the soil, rain, water and snow that also yielded tests that revealed the pH to be over ten times the normal alkalinity. He went on to say that these types of changes in soil, water and snow are very uncommon except in other areas around the world where people have been witnessing what many believe to be spraying from SAG programs. Mengels also stated that these changes have produced an “ecological crisis” and will have horrible consequences if continued. Mengels said, “Losses to our economy will be incredible and are on their way as we speak. Tree growth will be decreased which will result in the loss of logging jobs. It is also causing the decline of naturally occurring plant and grass growth that occurs in the normally acidic soils of grazing pastures, resulting in the demise of our grazing industry, fishing industry, and worst of all, basic agriculture in Northern California.”
What is amazing is that these tests and many others throughout the world are largely being ignored by the very governmental entities that are required to address them. Some politicians, like Mt. Shasta City Council member Ed Valenzuela may choose to ignore the issue. Valenzuela was made aware of the mass contamination at a city council meeting where he stated that the city did not want to sample the water for aluminum because the request was a “can of worms” that would, “open a Pandora’s box” that the city would have to pay for. Although several local citizens volunteered to pay the $22.00 cost of the test at an EPA lab, both Republican Committee Chairman Russ Porterfield, and Valenzuela voted no to having the water tested. The mayor Stearns wanted the test, but was overruled by a 3-2 vote. This response is not uncommon as Mengels has presented this issue and his scientific data to over 15 local and federal agencies including Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer’s office. To date he has received no response or action.
Is it a coincidence that the substances found in the rain, snow and soil in this region and around the world match the exact substances that scientists are “considering” implementing in various geo-engineering campaigns throughout the world? If not, then why have agencies and officials largely ignored these findings that are destroying our planet’s eco-system? Could it be that officials are fearful of exposing a massive cover-up of a world-wide ecological crime? Or is it the belief that this issue is simply too large and too complicated a problem for them to tackle? Whatever the reason for this ignorance, we need to demand that our questions and shocking test results get addressed not only in Shasta County, but in every part of the world. Our future on this planet is dependent on this issue being addressed.
Because this movement has come under attack from those who appear to be protecting the many political and corporate interests associated with SAG, it is essential that all of us around the world get involved by testing the rain, snow, soil and various outdoor surfaces and reporting the results to our elected officials and local environmental agencies. We must also reach out and educate all those involved with SAG who might be unaware of the environmental implications associated with their programs. Testing for pH changes and metals is simple and can be performed almost anywhere at a nominal price. Simple testing instructions and more information about geo-engineering programs can be found on the internet at www.geoengineeringwatch.org . Biologist Francis Mengels can be contacted by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org for more information on this issue, the tests he has performed and suggestions on testing procedures. Please take action by testing, reporting and demanding answers on this ever so important issue. Both nature and humanity depend on it. For more information, please contact me at email@example.com or visit my blog: http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/ .
Scientists Considered Pouring Soot Over the Arctic in the 1970s to Help Melt the Ice – In Order to Prevent An Ice Age
By George Washington (about the author)
For OpEdNews: George Washington – Writer
Preface: I have been an environmentalist my whole life. I have an extensive resume working in the environmental field: I campaigned for preservation of wilderness, for a reduction in urban pollution, for taking pesticide residues out of foods, etc. Indeed, I have previously campaigned against global warming.
I studied environmental science at a top university in the early 1980’s. I was taught – as Al Gore was taught in college – that temperatures are directly correlated with CO2 levels. For 2 decades (until very recently), I believed that anyone questioning any aspect of global warming was paid by big oil or big coal, or influenced by someone who was.
One of the main reasons for writing this essay is to point out that we must make sure that our “solutions” are not more dangerous than the problems themselves. For example, the Washington Post noted that the government forced a switch from one type of chemical to another because it was believed the first was enlarging the ozone hole. However, according to the Post, the chemical which the government demanded be used instead is 4,470 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Currently, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being proposed.
And Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.
Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.” (page 388).
Are those ideas any better than pouring soot on the North Pole?
Our primary responsibility must be to ensure that we are not doing more harm than good.
On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?
Because they were worried about a new ice age.
Newsweek discussed the 1975 article in 2006:
In April, 1975 … NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing “ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” the magazine warned of an impending “drastic decline in food production.” Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect “just about every nation on earth.” Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you’d have known that the threat was: global cooling…
Citizens can judge for themselves what constitutes a prudent response-which, indeed, is what occurred 30 years ago. All in all, it’s probably just as well that society elected not to follow one of the possible solutions mentioned in the NEWSWEEK article: to pour soot over the Arctic ice cap, to help it melt.
Newsweek was not alone. Some scientists and the press have been warning about an ice age off and on for over 100 years.
For example, on February 24, 1895, the New York Times published an article entitled “PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again”, which starts with the following paragraph:
The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.
In September 1958, Harper’s wrote an article called “The Coming Ice Age”.
On January 11, 1970, the Washington Post wrote an article entitled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future” which stated:
Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters–the worst may be yet to come. That’s the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by “climatologists.” the people who study very long-term world weather trends.
In 1972, two scientists – George J. Kukla (of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory) and R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown University) – wrote the following letter to President Nixon warning of the possibility of a new ice age:
Dear Mr. President:
Aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of the scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended by 42 top American and European investigators. We enclose the summary report published in Science and further publications are forthcoming in Quaternary Research.
The main conclusion of the meeting was that a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experience by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.
The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.
Existing data still do not allow forecast of the precise timing of the predicted development, nor the assessment of the man’s interference with the natural trends. It could not be excluded however that the cooling now under way in the Northern Hemisphere is the start of the expected shift. The present rate of the cooling seems fast enough to bring glacial temperatures in about a century, if continuing at the present pace.
The practical consequences which might be brought by such developments to existing social institution are among others:
(1) Substantially lowered food production due to the shorter growing seasons and changed rain distribution in the main grain producing belts of the world, with Eastern Europe and Central Asia to be first affected.
(2) Increased frequency and amplitude of extreme weather anomalies such as those bringing floods, snowstorms, killing frosts, etc.
With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research “
With best regards,
George J. Kukla (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory)
R. K. Matthews (Chairman, Dept of Geological Sciences, Brown U)
The White House assigned the task of looking at the claims contained in the letter to its science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and NOAA, who engaged in a flurry of activity looking into the threat of an ice age.
On August 1, 1974 the White House wrote a letter to Secretary of Commerce Frederick Dent stating:
Changes in climate in recent years have resulted in unanticipated impacts on key national programs and policies. Concern has been expressed that recent changes may presage others. In order to assess the problem and to determine what concerted action ought to be undertaken, I have decided to establish a subcommittee on Climate Change.
Out of this concern, the U.S. government started monitoring climate.
As NOAA scientists Robert W. Reeves, Daphne Gemmill, Robert E. Livezey, and James Laver point out:
There were also a number of short-term climate events of national and international consequence in the early 1970s that commanded a certain level of attention in Washington. Many of them were linked to the El Niño of 1972-1973.
A killing winter freeze followed by a severe summer heat wave and drought produced a 12 percent shortfall in Russian grain production in 1972. The Soviet decision to offset the losses by purchase abroad reduced world grain reserves and helped drive up food prices.
Collapse of the Peruvian anchovy harvest in late 1972 and early 1973, related to fluctuations in the Pacific ocean currents and atmospheric circulation, impacted world supplies of fertilizer, the soybean market, and prices of all other protein feedstocks.
The anomalously low precipitation in the U.S. Pacific north-west during the winter of 1972-73 depleted reservoir storage by an amount equivalent to more than 7 percent of the electric energy requirements for the region.On June 24, 1974, Time Magazine wrote an article entitled “Another Ice Age?” which stated:
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere …
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
(here’s the printer-friendly version).
Science News wrote an article in 1975 called “Chilling Possibilities” warning of a new ice age.
A January 1975 article from the New York Times warned:
The most drastic potential change considered in the new report (by the National Academy of Sciences) is an abrupt end to the present interglacial period of relative warmth that has governed the planet’s climate for the past 10,000 years.
A May 21, 1975 article in the New York Times again stated:
Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable.
A 1994 Time article entitled “The Ice Age Cometh?” stated:
What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously over the next 75 years or so. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead. After all, human-induced warming is still largely theoretical, while ice ages are an established part of the planet’s history. The last one ended about 10,000 years ago; the next one — for there will be a next one — could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
Note 1: Given that scientists considered pouring soot on the North Pole to melt the ice in the 1970’s, it should come as no surprise that soot may be having a dramatic effect on the ice sheets and glaciers now.
Note 2: Some global warming advocates warn that a warming-induced shut down of the huge ocean current known as the thermohaline circulation could cause a new ice age in certain limited parts of the world that are warmed by the by the North Atlantic current, such as Iceland, Ireland, the Nordic countries, and Britain. But scientists in the 1970s were talking about something different: the start of a worldwide ice age due, for example, to a 100,000 year cycle in solar radiation hitting the Earth.
Note 3: I not only do not receive a penny from oil or any other energy, industry or political person or organization of any nature whatsoever (I make a few peanuts from ads on my site, which I do not choose, but are selected without my input by my ad service), I am also wholly and completely against big oil, big coal and big nuclear. As I have repeatedly argued, power should be taken away from the oil giants and decentralized. I have repeatedly argued for microgeneration and for alternative energy. These things are beneficial for a number of reasons – including better health, less corruption of our political systems through decentralization of power, and a boost to our economy – in addition to whatever climate benefits they may have.
Note 4: For further information on the swing between warnings of ice ages and runaway global warming, see this and this. I have verified all of the facts made in the main post above, but I have not yet verified all of the claims made in the last two aforementioned web pages.
Scientists who have produced the first robust proof that cloud seeding can increase long-term rainfall are urging developing countries considering the technology to be cautious.
Cloud seeding involves injecting clouds with chemicals that encourage water vapour to form ice crystals heavy enough to fall, melting on their way to produce rain. Chemicals can be injected into clouds using aircraft or by launching rockets.
The researchers — led by Steven Siems, an associate professor from Monash University, Australia — examined more than four decades of cloud seeding experiments in Tasmania and found rainfall was at least five per cent higher over seeded areas.
But co-author Anthony Morrison points out that clouds in Tasmania contain vast amounts of supercooled liquid water and are unusually clean — making them particularly suitable for cloud seeding.
And Siems wants more research, saying, ”There could be other explanations for the increased rainfall — although we suspect that cloud seeding is a significant contributor.”
He told SciDev.Net that promoting cloud seeding to developing countries is “probably not a good thing to do”.
“There are many, many unscrupulous people in the field of weather modification who up until now have promoted some methods without any proper scientific evidence. Developing countries are particularly at risk here,” says Siems.
The technique ”remains controversial, especially because in the early days unrealistic claims were made about its success”, says Johannes Verlinde, associate professor of meteorology at US-based Pennsylvania State University.
Another reason for the controversy, he says, is that no two clouds are alike, making it difficult to compare clouds to prove it really works.
Siems cautions that developing countries should carefully consider whether cloud seeding is right for them and avoid other unproven techniques.
Roelof Bruintjes, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, United States, agrees, and says that there are many companies promoting techniques such as ‘ionisation’ — where charged particles in the air are claimed to act as nuclei for rain drops to form — that have not been scientifically proven.
The problem, he says, ”is that people are desperate and in some cases are willing to try anything”.
However, he also says cloud seeding may be an economical way to enhance water resources in some developing countries. Bruintjes’ own organisation is helping Mali monitor cloud seeding experiments.
But he “would advise all governments considering cloud seeding to conduct tests first to see if it is going to work for their country”.
The research was published in the June issue of the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 48, 1267 (2009)
Night-shining clouds created after space shuttle launches may offer clues into the cause of the Tunguska event, a mysterious blast which rocked southern Siberia more than a century ago.
Thin clouds have appeared at abnormally high altitudes over polar regions following space shuttle launches on several occasions in the past decade. These noctilucent, or night-shining, clouds typically occur in summer and lie at altitudes of about 85 kilometers, in a layer of the atmosphere called the thermosphere, says Michael C. Kelley, an atmospheric physicist at Cornell University. Kelley and his colleagues suggest in the July 28 Geophysical Research Letters that data gleaned from analyses of these high-flying clouds, as well as knowledge about the speed at which shuttle exhaust wafted to polar regions, now hint that the Tunguska blast of June 1908 (SN: 6/21/08, p. 5) resulted from a comet slamming into Earth’s atmosphere.
Each launch of a space shuttle, which burns a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as fuel, pumps about 300 metric tons of water vapor into the atmosphere at altitudes between 100 and 115 kilometers. Soon after the January 16, 2003, launch of the shuttle Columbia, a liftoff that took place just after the height of summer in the Southern Hemisphere, noctilucent clouds appeared over Antarctica. Similarly, a widespread display of the night-shining clouds showed up over Alaska two days after the shuttle Endeavour blasted off on August 8, 2007. Previous studies show that in both instances those clouds included material from the shuttle plumes.
“Conventional wisdom says that the plumes shouldn’t reach the poles that quickly, but they do,” Kelley notes. So sustained high-altitude winds must be carrying the plumes to the poles.
Michael S. Stevens, a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., agrees: Experiments show that “winds can be strong at these altitudes, but they’re not well understood.”
Using data based on shuttle plume movement, the researchers suggest that the Tunguska blast could have been responsible for unusually bright noctilucent clouds over Europe soon thereafter. The likely composition of those clouds further suggests that a comet caused the blast.
Some of the thickest and brightest noctilucent clouds ever observed — ones that cast enough light to read a newspaper in the middle of the night — appeared over Europe on July 1, 1908, Kelley says. Not coincidentally, he and his colleagues argue, the Tunguska blast occurred over southern Siberia about 22 hours earlier. The team’s models suggest that winds and diffusion could have transported material from the site of the blast to the skies over London, a distance of about 5,000 kilometers, in little more than a day.
Scientists at the time suggested that the night-shining clouds over London were made of meteoritic dust. But those aerosols are typically too small to reflect sunlight efficiently, Kelley argues, suggesting the clouds above Europe were made of ice crystals. This assumption, along with the new analysis of shuttle plume movement, strongly suggests that the object that blazed into the atmosphere and disintegrated above Siberia was a moisture-rich comet rather than a relatively dry asteroid.
“That’s an interesting idea, and worth considering,” Stevens says. In an alternate scenario, he notes, rather than the moisture being transported to Europe and then coalescing into clouds, the clouds may have formed over Siberia and then been transported to the west.
Arrogant scientists and Obama administration should recall the story of the old lady who swallowed a fly.
Pea-brained, arrogant Obama administration scientists recommend spewing more pollution into the atmosphere to “solve global warming.”
Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest the money in alternative energy production and/or install better scrubbers on all coal/gas smokestacks? It would be orders of magnitude more efficient to catch the pollution at the source rather than to try to sequester it from the atmosphere once its already been released and dispersed.
Please keep in mind, co2 makes up a fraciton of 1% of our atmosphere
By the way there’s snow on the ground right now outside my office, and its April.
Regardless this new proposed aerosol dispersal is a terrible idea just as the secret aerosol chemtrail program is.
. . .
WASHINGTON (AP) — Obama looks at “climate engineering”
The president’s new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth’s air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.
“It’s got to be looked at,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.”
Holdren outlined several “tipping points” involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of “really intolerable consequences,” he said.
Twice in a half-hour interview, Holdren compared global warming to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.”
At first, Holdren characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view. However, he went on to say he has raised it in administration discussions.
Holdren, a 65-year-old physicist, is far from alone in taking geoengineering more seriously. The National Academy of Science is making climate tinkering the subject of its first workshop in its new multidiscipline climate challenges program. The British parliament has also discussed the idea.
The American Meteorological Society is crafting a policy statement on geoengineering that says “it is prudent to consider geoengineering’s potential, to understand its limits and to avoid rash deployment.”
Last week, Princeton scientist Robert Socolow told the National Academy that geoengineering should be an available option in case climate worsens dramatically.
But Holdren noted that shooting particles into the air — making an artificial volcano as one Nobel laureate has suggested — could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly, he said.
Still, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it,” he added.
Another geoengineering option he mentioned was the use of so-called artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide — the chief human-caused greenhouse gas — out of the air and store it. At first that seemed prohibitively expensive, but a re-examination of the approach shows it might be less costly, he said.
I’ve uploaded a PDF version of The not-so-secret ingredient: Stadis 450 (dinonylnaphthalene sulfonic acid, barium salt).