Un intended consequences of offensive weather modification


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Un intended consequences of offensive weather modification

  1. 1. RESEARCHED AND COMPILED BY: ROBERT S. HARDT NUTRI-EPIGENETIC BIOCHEMICAL ANALYST “Let your food be thy medicine!”…. Hippocrates CONTACT INFORMATION ROBERTHARDT@YAHOO.COM 1-310-398-4011 2-18-2014 5-2-2014 THE KNOWN RISKS, CONSEQUENCES, SIDE EFFECTS OF WEATHER MODIFICATION, GEOENGINEERING-FLOODS, DROUGHT, HAIL-SNOW STORMS. HURRICANES, TORNADOES PDF - Google Search Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification PDF - Google Search Weather Modification, why should we be concerned? Weather Warfare: Beware the US Military’s Experiments with Climatic Warfare | Global Research The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use | Global Research The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing and perfecting these capabilities. Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power. (US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ emphasis added) While there is no firm evidence that the US Air Force weather warfare facilities have been deliberately applied to modify weather patterns, one would expect that if these capabilities are being developed for military use, they would at least be the object of routine testing, much in the same way as the testing of new conventional and strategic weapons systems. NOVA | The Contrail Effect
  2. 2. Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 Operational Defenses through Weather Control in 2030 A less hypothetical example occurred in 1972 in Rapid City, South Dakota. Project Skywatch, under the sponsorship of the Bureau of the Interior, seeded some clouds north of the city with over 500 pounds of nucleating salt. A tremendous storm followed which caused a flash flood that burst the Canyon Lake Dam. The result was 238 people dead and hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.? Subsequent investigations established that the, seeding was not responsible for the specific storm that caused the flood. Public opinion polls also showed that the majority of the town's inhabitants did not blame the weather researchers for the disaster.' Still, such events do raise some interesting problems. The practical result has been a severe limitation on weather modification research where there is any likelihood of damage to property or personal injuries; this has virtually eliminated some types of experiments, such as hurricane modification. Weather modification experiments can be developed in the laboratory and simulated to some extent on computers, but, in the end, they must be attempted in the atmosphere. The problem then arises of unintentional civil damage from weather systems which had been subject to modification experiments, whether or not those efforts were effective. Imagine,for instance, if it was revealed that a government agency had been experimenting with Hurricane Andrew before it struck the Florida coast in 1992. Any government agency would have a tough time surviving a controversy of that magnitude, especially given the possibility of billions of dollars In compensatory and punitive damage awards. These examples of projects gone awry also raise some profound questions as to the feasibility of offensive weather modification, for if such unforeseen consequences occur during relatively limited experiments, there is a significant possibility that a wider use of weather modification on the battlefield could result in significant fratricidal damage. The storm you send to strike your enemy may instead pounce on you. Of course, weather modification is still an emerging technology; presumably, as progress is made, such risks would diminish, but offensive weather modification will likely always remain a high-stakes wager. The payoffs can be enormous but so can the losses. On the other hand, localized suppression modification-fog and cloud dissipation, hail suppression, and other such ameliorative techniques-offers greater technological promise and less legal risk. There is little potential for a successful lawsuit challenging the clearing of a heavy fog, or the dissipation of a severe hailstorm. Furthermore, although suppression techniques are not as spectacular as the more overtly hostile offensive weather modification, the results can be important for the military, especially in an area like Western Europe which is plagued by bad weather and poor visibility. In general, therefore, it must be concluded that the military feasibility of offensive weather modification is limited. The present technology is uncertain, research is difficult and the results can be unpredictable to the point where the risk outweighs the possible gain. In contrast, the more defensively-oriented suppression techniques have a reasonably sound technological base, good potential for further research, and a reasonably high payoff. Nevertheless, there remains a question of ethics and morality in any use of weather modification, especially by the military. Does the military have the right to interfere with complex, poorly-understood weather systems in the name of national security? THE KNOWN RISKS, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR SIDE EFFECTS OF OF WEATHER MODIFICATION, GEOENGINEERING PDF - Google Search http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/briefings/warsaw01/BP%205%20.pdf CONTINUING RISK: Some governments see geoengineering as a quick, cheap and potentially unilateral ‘techno- fix’ that allows them to sidestep their historic mitigation and adaptation obligations to the international community. Computer modeling and peer-reviewed studies of geoengineering techniques to-date show,
  3. 3. overwhelmingly, that while the interventions may, in some cases, temporarily, lower temperatures or appear to sequester carbon dioxide, the negative impacts on some or several parts of the tropics and subtropics could be catastrophic. Galvanized by growing alarm over climate change and the domestic political costs of reducing emissions and changing lifestyles in Annex I countries, some governments are increasingly sanguine about developing these technologies. In the absence of a fully-informed international debate in the UN General Assembly, the political trend line is clear: one or a handful of major governments will, within the next few years, unilaterally experiment with large-scale earth system manipulations, purportedly to forestall climate change. Project: Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts GLOBAL DIMMING, RAMANATHAN PDF - Google Search Geoengineering Causing Drought And Fueling Fires » Geoengineering Causing Drought And Fueling Fires | GeoengineeringWatch.org GLOBAL DIMMING, JET CONTRAILS, THE 911 EFFECT PDF - Google Search The Modern History of Global Dimming | Ingienous Designs
  4. 4. CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS. It becomes increasingly evident that the detected SSR variations play an important role in various aspects of climate change. There are indications that dimming and brightening may have respectively counteracted and added to greenhouse warming over the past decades (Wild et al. 2007). Observed air temperatures over global terrestrial surfaces showed a negligible increase between the 1950s and 1980s, in line with the prevailing SSR dimming, which may have largely offset the in- creasing greenhouse gas forcing in this period (see schematic illustration in Fig. 1, left). Since the 1980s, with the transition from dimming to brightening, the increasing thermal forcing may have no longer been masked (Fig. 1, right), and rapid warming was observed. For the present synthesis this argument is further developed by utilizing the largely differ- ing air pollution and associated aerosol levels on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. While the NH exhibits high pollution levels with substantial temporal changes (increasing up to the 1980s and decreasing thereafter; cf. Fig. 3), pollution levels in the SH are an order of magnitude smaller, with only modest increases and no trend reversal (Stern 2006). This seems to be reflected in the observed hemispheric surface temperature records, based on the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) (Fig. 4; Table 1). Warming rates in the NH largely differ be- tween the dimming and brightening periods, with no warming at all during dimming with strong pollution increase (␣0.002°C decade␣1 between the 1950s and 1980s) but strong warming during brightening while pollution levels reduced (+0.3°C decade␣1 between the 1980s and 2000) (Fig. 4a; Table 1). This points again to a potentially substantial modulation of greenhouse warming by anthropogenic aerosol pollution and associated dimming and brightening. In contrast, in the SH, steady warming is observed throughout, with only slightly stronger warming rates in the 1980s–2000 (+0.15°C decade␣1) than in the 1950s– 1980s (+0.11°C decade␣1) (Fig. 4b; Table 1). This fits well with the lack of major anthropogenic aerosol variations and the gradually increasing greenhouse gas forcing in this hemisphere. Climate models as used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007), on the other hand, do not reproduce these characteristic differences in interhemispheric warming. Temperature changes simulated during the dimming and brightening phases by 23 models in twentieth-century “all forcings” experiments are shown in Figs. 4c and 4d for the NH and SH, respectively. In the NH, the average warming simulated by the models is too strong during dimming (by 0.12°C decade␣1) and too weak during subsequent brightening (by
  5. 5. 0.10°C decade␣1) (Fig. 4c; Table 1). This points to an insufficient representation of the processes causing dimming/brightening in the models to properly dampen and enhance greenhouse warming, respectively (Wild and Schmucki 2011). In contrast, in the SH, where aerosol pollution is much smaller and greenhouse gas forcing dominates, the models perform very well, with warming rates close to observed (within 0.02°C decade␣1 on aver- age over both periods) (Fig. 4d; Table 1). This suggests that climate models simulate decadal warming trends adequately when greenhouse gases act as the sole major anthropogenic forcing as in the SH, but may have difficulties when in addition strong decadal aerosol variations come into play, as in the NH. Another important issue is the potential impact of dimming/brightening on the water cycle. SSR changes effectively alter the energy available at Earth’s surface to drive evaporation and its energy equivalent, the latent heat flux. Since on a global level evaporation equals precipitation, any SSR- induced change in evaporation/latent heat flux will change the intensity of the water cycle (e.g., Ramanathan et al. 2001; Wild and Liepert 2010). Since the decline in SSR during the 1950s– 1980s may have overcompensated the increase in the greenhouse-induced atmospheric downwelling thermal radiation, this implies also a concurrent decrease in the energy available at Earth’s surface for evaporation/latent heat flux and a slowdown of the water cycle (see schematic illustration in Fig. 1, left). This is in line with observational evidence for decreasing precipitation over the same period shown in Fig. 5, based on NH land surface data from the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN; Peterson and Vose 1997). The indicated decline of precipitation on the order of 30–40 mm from the 1950s to 1980s corresponds to a latent heat energy flux equivalent of about 3 W m␣2 over this period. This fits with the magnitudes of the radiation changes over the same period as shown in Fig. 1 (left). In contrast, subsequent solar brightening may have added to the increasing greenhouse-induced downwelling thermal radiation from the 1980s onward and, accordingly, enhanced the surface energy available for evaporation and the water cycle (Liepert and Previdi 2009; Wild et al. 2008; Wild and Liepert 2010) (Fig. 1 right). This fits with the observed intensification of the water cycle during the 1980s–2000s (Fig. 5) and underlines the importance of SSR variations for the understanding of the changes in the water cycle. Wentz et al. (2007) estimated global precipitation changes using satellite observations from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) for the period 1987–2006, thus covering the brightening phase. Their estimated increase in global mean precipitation of 13.2 ± 4.8 mm yr␣1 decade␣1 over the period 1987–2006 corresponds to a latent heat flux equivalent of about 2 W m␣2 over the 20-yr period, in reasonable agreement with the estimated radiation changes given in Fig. 1 (right). Effect on Rainfall Prompted by the findings of ABC, several modeling experiments were done on the issue of global dimming. A General Circulation Model (GCM) study conducted by Ramanathan et al., (2001b) showed that the rainfall along the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) can be 121 increased by about 15%– 30%. Several other studies, particularly at finer scale (e.g. Mesoscale) has shown that an overall reduction tendency of rainfall can be imparted by global dimming (e.g. Ramanathan et al, 2005, Pathirana, et al, 2006). However, Pathirana et al., (2006), using numerical simulations with high resolution limited area (mesoscale) atmospheric models, demonstrated that while the tendency of rainfall decrease is shown in overall quantities, the effect of this is largely limited to those rainfall events with small intensities. The extremely large rainstorms that form the design criteria in urban storm drain age are not significantly decreased. The modeling results indicated two important points, namely, 1) There is no significant effect on the mean values of large rainstorms, 2) There is a fairly large variability in the effect on single rain storms that deviate in either direction (positive and negative) of the mean effect. As shown in the figure, while the average rainfall reduction of 20mm to 40mm rainfall intensity class due to ABC was about 10 percent, the 25%-50% quantile-spread was about 100 percentage points! Fig. 2. Percentage reduction of rainfall for different intensities. Box and Whiskers represent 25% and 75% quantiles, respectively. ((c) Kluwer Academic, 2006.)
  6. 6. It should be noted that the above results were obtained by numerical experiments that neglected the wash - away effects of rainfall on aerosol build up. In reality, rainfall acts to reduce aerosol concentrations due to the interactions of cloud microphysics. Therefore, in real world it could be speculated that the sensitivity of large rainstorms to ABC could be even smaller than that indicated by the numerical experiments. Combined Effects While there have not been adequate conclusive studies, the indications to date show that the reverse tendency of global dimming that is shown in temperature patterns can not be simply extrapolated to hydrological events. First, the effect of global dimming on large rainfall events that are of concern of the urban storm drainage planner is not as large as that on smaller events that largely affect the water resources. More importantly, the level of variability quite large that the influences are almost random. This applies to both greenhouse warming and global dimming. Another issue that complicates the combined picture is the quite large spatial and seasonal variability of the two phenomena. Particularly the anthropogenic aerosol build up is quite localized at a global scale and is seasonal (Ramanathan et al, 2005). For example the ABC phenomenon in Indian Ocean reaches its peak in the inter-monsoon period from February to April. Another salient feature that contrasts global dimming from greenhouse warming is its relatively small response time to forcing signals. The most important forcings on aerosol dimming are anthropogenic (or natural) release of absorbing aerosols, wind patterns and rainfall. The impact of these forcings is almost immediately felt and resulting changes in radiative budget are comparably fast. This complicated nature of the combined effects is emphasized by a observational data analysis by Herath and Rathnayake (2004). Conclusions Looked at from a global perspective, greenhouse warming and radiative cooling due to anthropogenic aerosol (ABC or Global Dimming) are opposing forces in terms of energy budget: the former heats the earth while the latter imparts a cooling tendency. However, recent research indicates that the same could not be said about the effects on hydrological cycle. What are the consequences of these interactions in the domain of planning urban water infrastructure systems (e.g. Storm water, water supplies)? The investigation of means of building the ability to cope with these anticipated changes into the designs themselves is a timely task. However, we argue that given the nature of complex interaction of various aspects of global climate change, this in practice, this does not translate into the simple task of focusing on one impact scenario (e.g. “extremely high rainstorms will be increased by 20±5 percent in magnitude.”), but rather a broad -based changes including those of the design philosophy itself, due to the massive, compounded uncertainties in the process of translating climatic change signals into the impacts on a given locality in a future point in time. The central principal around which the whole philosophy of dealing today, with the impacts of climate change tomorrow, is that the science is not in a position to know with any certainty of the exact nature and magnitude of impacts of climate change on our services in the future, while at the same time, it is virtually certain that there will be massive impacts. Therefore, the importance of no- regrets policies that build generic resilience to systems as opposed to optimizing for a given future scenario cannot be overemphasized. The fact that the variability of the climatic system also has major forcings on infrastructure in addition to change also supports this policy. Further there are many other pressures of global and local changes like those of demography, economy, land-use, etc., that pressurize the infrastructure systems during their lifetimes.
  7. 7. Aerosol Saturated Skies – The New Norm Though rain and snow is falling in areas of North America, at times in a deluge or “blizzard”, the droughts in the continental US ( and many other regions around the globe), are getting worse. There are now often massive areas of drifting cloud cover spanning thousands of miles over land masses and oceans with very little precipitation. Why is this? Why are the skies so often completely featureless as these expansive cloud banks and upper level “haze” drift across the globe? If individual clouds can be recognized in these “drifting masses”, they often appear “melted into” the upper story of geoengineering “haze”. Why is the wind often diminished under these featureless canopies? Horizon to horizon geoengineering trails are not the only sign of spraying. Clouds should be “white” and the sky “blue”. Wispy, dingy, cob web like upper level “clouds” are are not natural and another hallmark of spraying, as are “silvery white” skies. The Geoengineering Connection Atmospheric aerosol saturation diminishes wind and precipitation. The conditions described above are known consequences of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) and solar radiation management (SRM) . All available science data confirms the effect of geoengineering particulates on rainfall. Though main stream science sources are still not willing to openly admit to the fact that geoengineering programs have been fully deployed for decades, a growing mountain of evidence makes this fact all too clear. The ongoing stratospheric geoengineering programs are greatly reducing overall rainfall and all but eliminating deep blue skies. Blocking the sun with reflective geoengineering aerosols reduces evaporation. Wind is reduced significantly from atmospheric aerosol saturation as the particles scatter solar energy and thus reduce convection from the ground that would otherwise occur from daytime heating. The slowing of the wind reduces evaporation even more. Further, precipitation cells that do form are often dispersed and diminished from the excessive amount of geoengineering particulates. This causes too many “condensation nuclei” and the droplets do not combine and fall as rain but migrate on. It is important to remember that there are ALWAYS exceptions to the geoengineering consequences outlined in scientific study. There are simply far too many variables in the extremely complex climate system. Colliding air masses, strong weather fronts, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., are all among such variables that can still produce devastating and destructive winds and rains even with extensive
  8. 8. geoengineering. Global Dimming, The Loss Of Blue Skies There is a mountain of scientific data to confirm the reality of “global dimming’. Most have never even heard the term much less noticed the effect over recent decades. Though articles from main stream publications admit to the “global dimming” issue, most understate the percentage of dimming and all point the finger at “pollution particulates” as the sole cause. Countless jet aircraft which criss- cross our skies daily, dispersing millions of tons of toxic metal and chemical particulates, are completely ignored by all main stream media journalists and sources. To date main stream media has done its best to avoid even mentioning the subject of geoengineering much less admitting to these ongoing programs of total planetary devastation. The overall ramifications from global dimming and geoengineering cannot be accurately quantified. Loss of photo synthesis, destruction of the ozone layer, reduction in global rainfall, loss of blue sky, toxification of soils and waters, these are only a few of the known consequences of the global atmospheric spraying Greatly Diminished Atmospheric Protection From The Sun What does this imply? As already documented above, saturating the atmosphere with particulates shreds the protective layers of the atmosphere, namely the ozone layer. Particulate saturation in the upper atmosphere causes a chemical reaction which does the damage. There is now a massive Northern hemisphere ozone hole in addition to the Southern Hemisphere hole we have all heard about for decades. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is in all likelihood the primary cause of the global ozone depletion, not just “CFC’s” as we have been told. Again, this has already been cited above and can be easily researched. Search “geoengineering damages ozone layer”. All available science makes this point clear. Without the ozone layer, life in any form would likely not exist on our planet. There is yet one more issue related to the destruction of our natural protection from the sun’s usual radiation output: protection from solar flares. Coronal mass ejections or “CME’s” can and will do horrific damage to our planet and most especially human infrastructure. If electricity grids are shut down due to a strong CME, the potential dangers are sobering indeed. With no grid power to cool nuclear power facilities for an extended time, we could face Fukushima x 100, or 200, or?. Without cooling, meltdowns would eventually occur. Just one major nuclear catastrophe could exterminate life on the planet, let alone dozens or hundreds of them. Geoengineering is destroying our natural protection from such an event caused by a strong coronal mass ejection. Wind Pattern Changes And Catastrophic Methane Release Wind current pattern changes in turn trigger ocean current changes. Most are completely unaware of the wind and ocean current changes occurring around the globe. Even fewer are aware of the ramifications which are already unfolding from these changes. Ocean current changes are already delivering warmer waters to regions with vast undersea methane deposits. These deposits are known as “methane hydrate” deposits and literally hold life on earth in the balance. Many regions around the globe are beginning to expel methane from hydrate and clathrate deposits. The East Siberian Shelf of the Arctic is already releasing en masse. All available data indicates that this event alone is changing our biosphere by the day. Though groups of scientists like the “Arctic Methane Emergency Group” (AMEG) are calling for “emergency wartime scale
  9. 9. geoengineering to avert planetary catastrophe”, available data indicates that the very geoengineering programs they are selling as a cure, are more likely a major causal factor in triggering the methane catastrophe in the first place. The fully deployed planetary geoengineering programs have been altering wind and rain patterns at an ever increasing level for decades. Again, it is these alterations that have likely been a major factor in the triggering of mass methane release due to the altered ocean currents and altered hydrological cycles from the ongoing geoengineering programs. Saturation of the atmosphere with methane is equivalent to covering the planet with a sheet of glass. The sun’s thermal energy gets in, but does not get out. Though most articles on methane release state methane to be 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than Co2, this is over a 100 year time horizon. Over a ten year time horizon, methane is at least 100 times more potent. In addition to the atmospheric damage caused by the methane release, there is also ocean acidification. As the methane migrates from the sea floor to the surface, much is dissolved into the water. Oceans are currently acidifying at an extremely alarming rate. Again, the consequences of methane release alone threatens all life on Earth. No “Natural” Weather The global geoengineering/weather modification/chemtrail programs have likely been going on for over six decades. Recently found documents from the NASA archives indicate that these programs already had budgets into the hundreds of millions of dollars even by the mid 1960′s. These already massive climate altering programs were radically ramped up in the last 15 years. Though most of us alive today have perhaps known little truly “natural” weather, what we are experiencing today is anything but natural. The climate now “swings” radically from one extreme to another. It is now common to have spring like temperatures one day and snow (likely artificially nucleated) the next. These “swings” or “fluctuations” are getting ever more severe. Manipulation Of The Jet Stream And The Shredding Of The Atmosphere Is this really possible? Available science as well as observed weather events and jet stream “anomalies” say absolutely yes. HAARP is the acronym for a massively powerful “ionosphere heater” facility located in Alaska. This is a huge and extremely powerful antenna array which is capable of transmitting as much as a billion watts of power into the ionosphere. The effect of this is to create a ‘bulge” in the atmosphere which in turn can alter the course of the jet stream. Such alterations can in turn “steer” weather systems. By such manipulation, storm fronts can be combined and worsened into “frankenstorms”, or broken apart and dispersed. There are thought to be at least 18 of these “ionosphere heaters” around the globe, some held by China and Russia. It has also become evident in recent years that “weather warfare” is already a lethal global reality. The potential of these frequency transmitter facilities is enhanced by the spraying of our skies. The saturation of the atmosphere with metal particulates makes the atmosphere more “conductive”. This in turn increases the capabilities of the ionosphere heaters. Dry Lightning And Out Of Control Forest Fires An atmosphere that is more conductive from metal particulate saturation can produce more frequent lightning. These same particulates also have the net effect of “diminishing and dispersing” rain. Forests around the globe are now filled with dead and dying trees (referenced later in this article). In addition, the foliage of trees are now covered with what amounts to an “incendiary” dust from the
  10. 10. geoengineering particulates. Add the shredded ozone layer which creates more heat, and the “weather modified” conditions are even worse. The obvious result is more frequent and catastrophic forest fires. This phenomenon is being played out around the globe. Summer of 2012 saw the Northern Hemisphere burning down and now it is Australia and Tasmania in meltdown. Artificially Nucleated Snow Storms Yet another seemingly impossible aspect of global weather modification is geoengineered snow storms. Many will write this one off as impossible without any investigation. That is a mistake as the science of chemical ice nucleation is very established and commonly practiced in many arenas though it is hard to comprehend this process being done on such a massive scale. There are several patents on “artificial ice nucleation for weather modification”, including one from NASA. Artificially nucleated storms appear to be carried out under a myriad of conditions. In many cases, storms that should have yielded only rain, can be artificially nucleated to “change over” to snow. The term “change over” has recently been coined by The Weather Channel and other corporate/military/ industrial complex weather agencies. A geoengineered snow event is generally called “heavy wet snow” (another recent term). This “snow” can begin to fall at temperatures far above freezing though the ongoing chemical process eventually cools the surrounding air mass. The resulting “snow” and “ice” can sometimes remain a surprisingly long time in spite of warmer temperatures, a result of artificial chemical nucleation. This aspect of weather modification is covered in the following article, “Geoengineered Snow Storms Wreaking Havoc Around the Globe”. Temporary Cooling At The Cost Of A Worsened Overall Warming This is the net result of geoengineering. Nature does not give something for nothing. This should seem all too obvious, but unfortunately the “scientists” in so many cases seem to be completely blind to the facts. In the case of cloud seeding to produce rain, if they succeed, then that moisture will not end up where it would have otherwise gone. In the case of saturation spraying that is known to diminish rain by scattering it into massive artificial cloud cover, where will all that moisture end up? Coming down somewhere else in a deluge? Is this perhaps why the US is locked in record drought and England is having record rains? The cooling effects of geoengineering come at the cost of a much worsened overall warming of the planet. Even NASA admits the “condensation trails” (geoengineering particulate trails) are warming the planet.
  11. 11. The Systemic Poisoning Of All Life On Earth Sound like an “alarmist” statement or conspiracy theory? All available data points to this conclusion as a hard and undeniable fact for any that do objective research. Countless lab tests of precipitation from around the globe (cited above) have been done by concerned individuals and groups in recent years, and the results are shocking to say the least. Our rain and snow is quite literally packed with the very same highly toxic heavy metals named in numerous geoengineering patents as primary elements. The air we breath is also laden with the same toxins aluminum/alumina, barium, strontium, manganese, thorium, and now even fluoride is being reported in recent tests from Norway. So much metal has fallen on the boreal forests of the Pacific Northwest that soil PH changes of up to 15 times more alkaline have been noted. A recent documentary film by filmmaker Michael Murphy, “Why In The World Are They Spraying” covers some of these changes and the forest die off that is occurring in boreal forests. Though there are countless articles documenting the die off of forests around the globe, putting the blame only on increasing temperatures, drought, and beetles, none mention geoengineering. To omit geoengineering in this equation is to omit what appears to be the greatest factor of all. The lethal effects of “bioavailable” aluminum/alumina in rainwater and thus in the soils is well documented. Its effect on trees is also noted in science studies. Of course there are corporations who exist to profit from calamity. Monsanto always seems to be at the top of this list. As geoengineered drought and aluminum sterilized soils force independent farmers to sell, international ag corporations are there to buy up the land and put to use their “aluminum resistant seeds.” What Is Geoengineering Doing To Us? Inhalation of microscopic particulates is highly damaging no matter what the particulate material. Respiratory ailments and mortalities are now literally epidemic. Degenerative human diseases that are linked to heavy metal exposure are even more lethal and are now going virtually off the charts. ADD, Alzheimer’s, Autism, ALL, immune disfunction, and many other diseases associated with heavy metals, have all skyrocketed in recent years. According to scientists like internationally know neuroscientist Russell Blaylock, the heavy metal nano particles are so small that they pass right through the lung lining into the blood stream. There they can adhere to cell receptors like a plaque, slowly but surely shutting down bodily functions and the immune system. These metals are all but
  12. 12. impossible to remove once they have become lodged in the body. In addition, virtually every bite we eat is now contaminated with these toxic nano particles as they are absorbed by plant life, which is highly damaging to crops. Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (AKA chemtrails) has now tainted all. Every breath we take, every bite we eat, all is contaminated. A mountain of data, studies, and testing confirms this conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. We are all quite literally under assault. The threat to all life on earth from the global weather modification programs cannot be overstated. It is up to all of us to help in the task of bringing these programs to light, and to a halt so the planet can begin to recover. Arm yourself with copies of credible articles, data, and DVD copies. “Why In The World Are They Spraying” by Michael Murphy is an excellent tool for spreading the word on this most dire issue. It is likely the vast majority of military and private sector people involved with geoengineering do not understand the consequences. Time is not on our side. Every day global geoengineering continues, our odds are diminished. We must all pull together in the effort to shine the light on this greatest of all human crimes. Once the geoengineering issue is truly out in the open, and those who physically carry out the spraying realize what they are a part of, we have a chance to stop these lethal programs. Sadly, we will “need” a few more catastrophes until governments will be forced to take badly needed decisions to efficiently protect the environment and develop a slightly new strategy: adaption (Pittock, 2005). Only then will the sustainable environmental protection attain the importance it deserves. VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS EFFECTS ON WEATHER, ALAN ROBOCK PDF - Google Search