Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Are chem trails man made or are they alien?
Posted by:
Mystery unsolved
()
Date: May 25, 2022 04:58PM
I’ve always wondered.
references
Posted by:
the real General Mahdi
()
Date: May 25, 2022 05:57PM
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology
Dr Michio Kaku Laser weather modification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZneZHVeTVM
"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025"
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a333462.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53007/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg53007.pdf
frum page 6
"Stratospheric Sulfate Injections—A spray of sulfates into the second layer of earth’s atmosphere13could reflect incoming solar radiation to reduce absorption. This process occurs naturally after a volcanic eruption, in which large quantities of sulfur dioxide are released into the stratosphere."
frum page 7
"Risks and Detriments
Unilateral deployment—It is possible for a non-governmental group or individual to undertake one of the higher-impact, lower-cost geoengineering initiatives unilat-erally, perhaps without scientific support or any risk management strategy. As rec-ognized in the Royal Society report, the materials for stratospheric injections, for ex-ample, would be readily available and affordable to a small group or even a wealthy individual. For this reason and others, national and global security are also key con-cerns with geoengineering and international governance may be needed at the front end.
Moral hazard—Another concern is that the public knowledge of widespread imple-mentation of geoengineering represents a moral hazard, in which a person or group perceiving itself insulated from risk is more likely to engage in risky or detrimental behavior. The Royal Society suggests that there is significant risk in large-scale ef-forts being treated as a ‘‘get out of jail free card,’’ in which carbon sensitive con-sumer decision-making for mitigation will wane. Federal funding and political mo-
page 8
mentum for mitigation could also be compromised if geoengineering is seen as a su-perior substitute for traditional mitigation and adaptation.
Ocean Acidification—A clear and significant disadvantage of geoengineering is that, unlike carbon mitigation strategies, most strategies do not reduce the progress of ocean acidification or destruction of coral reefs and marine life due to higher ocean temperatures. CDR methods address ambient carbon levels and could indi-rectly affect ocean carbon levels by slowing the rate of carbon uptake, but it is not clear that decreases in atmospheric carbon would help reverse ocean acidification. SRM methods do not address carbon levels at all.
Accidental Cessation of SRM—One critical drawback of SRM methods specifically is that, because they do not modify atmospheric carbon concentrations, a disruption of service could result in large and rapid changes in climate, i.e. a return to the un-mitigated impact of increased carbon levels. If SRM methods are undertaken with-out congruent controls on GHG emissions, then we would be constantly at risk of dramatic climate changes if the SRM program ends. These potential rapid, poten-tially catastrophic impacts must be carefully considered before implementation at any scale. A concurrent charge against geoengineering is that we may not have the political power, funds, foresight or organization, either domestically or internation-ally, for long-term governance of projects of this scale without incurring unaccept-able negative impacts.
Food and Water Security—A large-scale initiative impacting weather patterns could greatly modify the precipitation patterns in particular geographic areas, jeop-ardizing local food and fresh water supplies for local populations. For example, a drought incurred by unforeseen impacts of artificial cloud formation could suppress crop growth. Poor and developing nations may be particularly susceptible to such impacts.Butterfly Effect—Ultimately, there is near certainty that some consequences of geoengineering methods cannot be anticipated and will remain unseen until full-scale deployment. Skeptics have alleged the possibility of an ecological
‘‘butterfly ef-fect,’’ in which the secondary effects of geoengineering are so wildly unforeseen that a large scale ecological crisis could occur. Some scientists argue that the possibility that such harmful side effects may be larger than the expected benefits should deter consideration of some or all geoengineering proposals."
"H.R.2977 - Space Preservation Act of 2001"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2977/text
Project Censored Top 20 News Stories 2011<-----------2011!
9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification
September 30, 2011
Rising global temperatures, increasing population and degradation of water supplies have created broad support for the growing field of weather modification. The US government has conducted weather modification experiments for over half a century, and the military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on these discoveries.
One of the latest programs is HAARP, the High Frequency Active Aural Research Program. This technology can potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. The scientific idea behind HAARP is to “excite” a specific area of the ionosphere and observe the physical processes in that excited area with intention of modifying ecological conditions. HAARP can also be used as a weapon system, capable of selectively destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
Another Environmental Modification (EnMod) program is that of atmospheric geoengineering, or cloud seeding, which has found new life since the global warming scare. Cloud seeding involves creating cirrus clouds from airplane contrails. Unlike regular contrails, which dissolve in minutes, these artificial contrails can last from several hoursto days. Once the artificial clouds have been created, they are used to reflect solar or manmade radiation.
At a recent international symposium, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research. The Belfort Group has been working to raise public awareness about toxic aerial spraying, popularly referred to as chemtrails. However, scientists preferred the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon, in an attempt to move the inquiry away from amateur conspiracy theories.
Dr. Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology, presented a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” He stated clearly, “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.” Vermeeren mentioned a 1991 patent now held by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, with “18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material.” Authors of the study expressed concern that Raytheon, a private corporation, makes daily flights spraying these materials in our skies with apparently minimal government oversight. Raytheon is the same company that holds the HAARP contract with the US.
Other countries are also experimenting. The Chinese government announced in April, 2007 the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. China now conducts more cloud-seeding projects than any other nation.
Sources:
“Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Rady Ananda, Global Research, July 30, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
Dr. Coen Vermeeren, Video of Chemtrail Symposium speech, May 29, 2010 (beginning at 35 mins.). http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
”Global Warming: An Effect of Weather Manipulation” The European Union Times online, January 3, 2010. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/01/global-warming-an-effect-of-weather-manipulation
“Man-Made Climate Change in the Skies,” March 28, 2011, Commonwealth Club National Podcast. http://commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/man-made-climate-change-skies-32811
“Persistent Jet Contrails & Man-made Clouds Change our Climate, Harming Agriculture & Our Natural Resources,” Rosalind Peterson, Agriculture Defense Coalition, July 12, 2009. http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/articles/NWV_Persistent_Contrails_and_Man_Made_Clouds_July_12_2009_by_Rosalind_Peterson.pdf
Student Researcher: Noe Otero, San Francisco State University
Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows, San Francisco State University
Geoengineering: Governance and Technology
Dr Michio Kaku Laser weather modification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZneZHVeTVM
"Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025"
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a333462.pdf
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53007/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg53007.pdf
frum page 6
"Stratospheric Sulfate Injections—A spray of sulfates into the second layer of earth’s atmosphere13could reflect incoming solar radiation to reduce absorption. This process occurs naturally after a volcanic eruption, in which large quantities of sulfur dioxide are released into the stratosphere."
frum page 7
"Risks and Detriments
Unilateral deployment—It is possible for a non-governmental group or individual to undertake one of the higher-impact, lower-cost geoengineering initiatives unilat-erally, perhaps without scientific support or any risk management strategy. As rec-ognized in the Royal Society report, the materials for stratospheric injections, for ex-ample, would be readily available and affordable to a small group or even a wealthy individual. For this reason and others, national and global security are also key con-cerns with geoengineering and international governance may be needed at the front end.
Moral hazard—Another concern is that the public knowledge of widespread imple-mentation of geoengineering represents a moral hazard, in which a person or group perceiving itself insulated from risk is more likely to engage in risky or detrimental behavior. The Royal Society suggests that there is significant risk in large-scale ef-forts being treated as a ‘‘get out of jail free card,’’ in which carbon sensitive con-sumer decision-making for mitigation will wane. Federal funding and political mo-
page 8
mentum for mitigation could also be compromised if geoengineering is seen as a su-perior substitute for traditional mitigation and adaptation.
Ocean Acidification—A clear and significant disadvantage of geoengineering is that, unlike carbon mitigation strategies, most strategies do not reduce the progress of ocean acidification or destruction of coral reefs and marine life due to higher ocean temperatures. CDR methods address ambient carbon levels and could indi-rectly affect ocean carbon levels by slowing the rate of carbon uptake, but it is not clear that decreases in atmospheric carbon would help reverse ocean acidification. SRM methods do not address carbon levels at all.
Accidental Cessation of SRM—One critical drawback of SRM methods specifically is that, because they do not modify atmospheric carbon concentrations, a disruption of service could result in large and rapid changes in climate, i.e. a return to the un-mitigated impact of increased carbon levels. If SRM methods are undertaken with-out congruent controls on GHG emissions, then we would be constantly at risk of dramatic climate changes if the SRM program ends. These potential rapid, poten-tially catastrophic impacts must be carefully considered before implementation at any scale. A concurrent charge against geoengineering is that we may not have the political power, funds, foresight or organization, either domestically or internation-ally, for long-term governance of projects of this scale without incurring unaccept-able negative impacts.
Food and Water Security—A large-scale initiative impacting weather patterns could greatly modify the precipitation patterns in particular geographic areas, jeop-ardizing local food and fresh water supplies for local populations. For example, a drought incurred by unforeseen impacts of artificial cloud formation could suppress crop growth. Poor and developing nations may be particularly susceptible to such impacts.Butterfly Effect—Ultimately, there is near certainty that some consequences of geoengineering methods cannot be anticipated and will remain unseen until full-scale deployment. Skeptics have alleged the possibility of an ecological
‘‘butterfly ef-fect,’’ in which the secondary effects of geoengineering are so wildly unforeseen that a large scale ecological crisis could occur. Some scientists argue that the possibility that such harmful side effects may be larger than the expected benefits should deter consideration of some or all geoengineering proposals."
"H.R.2977 - Space Preservation Act of 2001"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2977/text
Project Censored Top 20 News Stories 2011<-----------2011!
9. Government Sponsored Technologies for Weather Modification
September 30, 2011
Rising global temperatures, increasing population and degradation of water supplies have created broad support for the growing field of weather modification. The US government has conducted weather modification experiments for over half a century, and the military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on these discoveries.
One of the latest programs is HAARP, the High Frequency Active Aural Research Program. This technology can potentially trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. The scientific idea behind HAARP is to “excite” a specific area of the ionosphere and observe the physical processes in that excited area with intention of modifying ecological conditions. HAARP can also be used as a weapon system, capable of selectively destabilizing agricultural and ecological systems of entire regions.
Another Environmental Modification (EnMod) program is that of atmospheric geoengineering, or cloud seeding, which has found new life since the global warming scare. Cloud seeding involves creating cirrus clouds from airplane contrails. Unlike regular contrails, which dissolve in minutes, these artificial contrails can last from several hoursto days. Once the artificial clouds have been created, they are used to reflect solar or manmade radiation.
At a recent international symposium, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone can see in the sky or discover in peer-reviewed research. The Belfort Group has been working to raise public awareness about toxic aerial spraying, popularly referred to as chemtrails. However, scientists preferred the term ‘persistent contrails’ to describe the phenomenon, in an attempt to move the inquiry away from amateur conspiracy theories.
Dr. Vermeeren, Delft University of Technology, presented a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” He stated clearly, “Weather manipulation through contrail formation… is in place and fully operational.” Vermeeren mentioned a 1991 patent now held by Raytheon, a private defense contractor, with “18 claims to reduce global warming through stratospheric seeding with aluminum oxide… thorium oxide … and refractory Welsbach material.” Authors of the study expressed concern that Raytheon, a private corporation, makes daily flights spraying these materials in our skies with apparently minimal government oversight. Raytheon is the same company that holds the HAARP contract with the US.
Other countries are also experimenting. The Chinese government announced in April, 2007 the creation of the first-ever artificial snowfall over the city of Nagqu in Tibet. China now conducts more cloud-seeding projects than any other nation.
Sources:
“Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails,” Rady Ananda, Global Research, July 30, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369
Dr. Coen Vermeeren, Video of Chemtrail Symposium speech, May 29, 2010 (beginning at 35 mins.). http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7299427
”Global Warming: An Effect of Weather Manipulation” The European Union Times online, January 3, 2010. http://www.eutimes.net/2010/01/global-warming-an-effect-of-weather-manipulation
“Man-Made Climate Change in the Skies,” March 28, 2011, Commonwealth Club National Podcast. http://commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/man-made-climate-change-skies-32811
“Persistent Jet Contrails & Man-made Clouds Change our Climate, Harming Agriculture & Our Natural Resources,” Rosalind Peterson, Agriculture Defense Coalition, July 12, 2009. http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/articles/NWV_Persistent_Contrails_and_Man_Made_Clouds_July_12_2009_by_Rosalind_Peterson.pdf
Student Researcher: Noe Otero, San Francisco State University
Faculty Evaluator: Kenn Burrows, San Francisco State University