Chemtrail_Illness_Research

[Guest guest]

The Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects

 

 

For the past few years investigators and researchers have been searching

for hard evidence on the elusive phenomena of chemtrail spraying. If one

searches GoogleNews for articles on chemtrails in (with 4500 periodicals

represented) not one article will be found. There is simply no coverage on

this topic in the mainstream media.

 

Imagine our surprise when we discovered extensive proof of government

involvement, funding, sponsorship, multidisciplinary research, policy making

and implementation of global atmospheric modification under the

classification of 'Geoengineering.' This is the chemtrail smoking gun we

have been looking for.

 

Authorized by Congress and sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences,

a monumental and in-depth study on global warming and possible corrective

measures (mitigations) was undertaken in the early 1990s. Represented were

senior researchers, faculty, theoreticians, atmospheric scientists,

department heads and CEO's from a multitude of prestigious institutions. The

Smithsonian, Harvard, General Motors, Cambridge, MIT, Yale, World Resources

Institute, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Secretary General

of the United Nations, Oxford, Brookings Institution, Columbia University,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Carnegie-Mellon University, Princeton

University, Brown University, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and many more.

This colossal study recalls the scope, expense and secrecy of the Manhattan

Project, yet the goals and eventual impacts of it are far greater.

 

The Chemtrail Smoking Gun

Proof of global atmospheric geoengineering

by: Bruce Conway

 

 

Five years ago I founded the Chemtrails Hall of Shame web site to

document and investigate the elusive Chemtrail spraying operations in the

skies above my home in the Pacific NW. The site can be found at:

http://www.lightwatcher.com/

 

During this time I have had the opportunity to work with and befriend

several of the luminaries within this field of investigation: Diane Harvey,

Brian Holmes and a very special investigator who chooses to remain anonymous

in this article. Each of these individuals has contributed greatly to the

subject, keeping this topic alive within the alternative media . These

chemtrail spraying programs, which are apparently being conducted on a

worldwide basis, are evident to anyone who has the desire to look up and

perceive the evidence. Yet, definitive proof has remained elusive.

Total denial by governmental authorities, the shunning of this topic by

mainstream media, the systematic discreditation of researchers, ongoing

cover-ups by the scientific establishment, and a coordinated systematic

policy of disinformation has relegated this topic to the realm of fantasy

and paranoid delusion. Regardless, it continues to go on above our heads,

and has now grown to become the largest coordinated global engineering

project in the history of our species. How can I make such a preposterous

claim?

 

Brian Holmes of http://www.holmestead.ca/ has investigated these

eco-crimes for the past several years. Because of his efforts, many within

Canada and on the net have become aware of the ongoing spraying operations.

Like other serious investigators who have studied this phenomena, Brian's

work has been maligned, and there are ongoing attempts to discredit him and

his sources.

 

Some months ago, a Chemtrail insider that Brian nicknamed 'Deep Shield'

came forward with specific and detailed information about this mysterious

program, corresponding with him via e-mail. A transcript of the

communications with Deep Shield and the Shield Project can be read online

at:

 

http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/shieldproject.html. For those of us

who have studied chemtrails carefully, the revealing dialog rang of the

truth.

 

 

Since then we have been able to study, and verify a number of Deep

Shield's primary claims. The anonymous insider gave Brian's readers some

valuable clues to follow if they wished to investigate deeper into the

history and hard science of chemtrails. A primary clue was to investigate

the term 'geoengineering.'

 

One investigator took the clues provided by 'Deep Shield' and dug in. She

eventually found an N.A.S. study on Geoengineering and the Mitigation of

Global Warming. This study is still available online and is also available

in hardcover. This massive document validates the insider information

provided by Deep Shield, and has lead to an additional gold mine of

evidence.

 

This massive research study is entitled: Policy Implications of Greenhouse

Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base - Panel on Policy

Implications of Greenhouse Warming, sponsored by the National Academy of

Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The results were presented in 1992 and published in book form in 2000 by the

National Academy Press. This 994 page study is the textbook on greenhouse

gasses, global warming, policy decisions and mitigation's (corrective

measures). Included within is the hard science many chemtrails researchers

have been searching for: the scientists, agencies, institutions and

corporations involved, cost factors, chemical formula, mathematical

modeling, delivery methods, policies, recruiting of foreign governments,

acquisition of materials, and the manufacturing of aerosol compounds, etc.

 

Policy Implications of Global Warming This entire volume can presently be

read online at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309043867/html/index.html. Keep

in mind that this study is only the tip of the iceberg. Literally hundreds

of papers on related topics have been published in scientific journals. We

don't expect this featured study to remain online for long once the cat is

out of the bag. So do check it out soon.

 

The full involvement of foremost government agencies, research firms,

universities and private corporations are detailed in this global

'geoengineering' study. Keep in mind that this was approved by and funded by

Congress. We expect that this documentation will bolster the beliefs of most

hardcore chemtrail believers. It will also continue to undermining what

little trust still remains in our leaders and their institutions. This

documentation proves that they have lied repeatedly about their involvement

and the existence of chemtrail spraying programs.

 

It also appears that we 'Chemtrail' investigators have been chasing our

tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to

keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real

story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the

scientific umbrella of 'Geoengineering and intentional climate change.'

 

Chemtrails are just one of the 'mitigations' proposed to Geoengineering

our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments

and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of

supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs.

One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson, published in

the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998)

 

The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of

undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation,

environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly

address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes:

" The projected insufficiency of Kyoto's emission reduction regime, and the

problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for

an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia. "

 

" Geoengineering--intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth's

climatic systems--may be such an alternative. This part proposes that,

unlike a regulatory " Marshall Plan " of costly emissions reductions,

technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory

" Manhattan Project " geared toward developing feasible geoengineering

remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global

warming and avert many of its most dire consequences. "

 

" In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved

from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy

journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the

creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton

growth with iron " fertilizer " in parts of the Earth's oceans. [FN128]

Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial " Mount

Pinatubos " by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper

atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo

in 1991. [FN129] " pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan

Project. "

 

In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and

the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective

global warming mitigation turned out to be the spraying of reflective

aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and

private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a

global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet's albedo

(reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to

introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere.

 

This method was the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits.

It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental

protection and regulatory entanglements.

 

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now

being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our

leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in

which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be

acceptable losses.

 

This landmark study; the widespread experimentation and published papers

of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence

that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows

that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming

mitigation.

 

The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft

received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767

tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of KC-135s,

the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane. The final order will exceed

500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft.

 

Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without

the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand

experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain

sight.

 

The following excerpts detail the preferred geoengineering Mitigations for

reducing greenhouse gasses, global warming and radiation from space. Quoted

from: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and

the Science Base - Panel on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming

 

Evaluating Geoengineering Options

" Several geoengineering options appear to have considerable potential for

offsetting global warming and are much less expensive than other options

being considered. Because these options have the potential to affect the

radiative forcing of the planet, because some of them cause or alter a

variety of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and because the climate

system is poorly understood, such options must be considered extremely

carefully. These options might be needed if greenhouse warming occurs,

climate sensitivity is at the high end of the range considered in this

report, and other efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions fail. "

 

" The first set of geoengineering options screens incoming solar radiation

with dust or soot in orbit about the earth or in the atmosphere. The second

set changes cloud abundance by increasing cloud condensation nuclei through

carefully controlled emissions of particulate matter. "

 

" The stratospheric particle options should be pursued only under extreme

conditions or if additional research and development removes the concern

about these problems. The cloud stimulation option should be examined

further and could be pursued if concerns about acid rain could be managed

through the choice of materials for cloud condensation nuclei or by careful

management of the system. The third class increases ocean absorption of CO2

through stimulating growth of biological organisms. "

 

Screening Out Some Sunlight

" Another option for mitigating a global warming would be to try to control

the global radiation balance by limiting the amount of incoming radiation

from the sun. This could be done by increasing the reflectivity of the

earth, i.e., the albedo. Proposals for increasing the whiteness of roofs and

surface features would have some effect, but only a fraction of incident

solar radiation reaches the earth's surface and a purposeful change in

albedo would have more impact if done high in the atmosphere. According to

Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is

sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling. Placing a screen in the

atmosphere or low earth orbit could take several forms: it could involve

changing the quantity or character of cloud cover, it could take the form of

a continuous sheet, or it could be divided into many ''mirrors " or a cloud

of dust. Preliminary characterizations of some of the possibilities that

might be considered are provided

below. "

 

Stratospheric Dust

" Although the space dust option does not appear to be sensible, computations

of the residence times of 0.2-µm dust above 20 to 40 km are of the order of

1 to 3 years (Hunten, 1975). It seems to be generally accepted that volcanic

aerosols remain in the stratosphere for several years (Kellogg and

Schneider, 1974; Ramaswamy and Kiehl, 1985). A screen could be created in

the stratosphere by adding more dust to the natural stratospheric dust to

increase its net reflection of sunlight. "

 

Mass Estimates

" Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985) estimate that an aerosol dust loading of 0.2

g/m2 for dust with a radius of about 0.26 µm increases the planetary albedo

by 12 percent, resulting in a 15 percent decrease of solar flux reaching the

surface. Since an approximately 1 percent change in solar flux is required,

and their Figures 13 and 15 suggest that, at these loadings, the dust

effects may reasonably be extrapolated downward linearly, estimates will be

made by using a dust loading of 0.02 g/m2 with a particle radius of 0.26

µm. "

 

" The dust in Ramaswamy and Kiehl's model is distributed between 10 and 30

km in the stratosphere, uniformly over the globe. The actual effect on

radiative forcing of a global distribution of additional dust would be

somewhat greater at low than at high latitudes because more of the sunlight

is effective there for geometric reasons. This would decrease slightly the

equator-to-pole temperature gradients and might have some effect on weather

intensity. Presumably, this effect can also be studied with global climate

models. "

 

Delivery Scenarios

" Aircraft Exhaust Penner et al. (1984) suggested that emissions of 1 percent

of the fuel mass of the commercial aviation fleet as particulates, between

40,000- and 100,000-foot (12- to 30-km) altitude for a 10-year period, would

change the planetary albedo sufficiently to neutralize the effects of an

equivalent doubling of CO2. They proposed that retuning the engine

combustion systems to burn rich during the high-altitude portion of

commercial flights could be done with negligible efficiency loss. Using

Reck's estimates of extinction coefficients for particulates (Reck, 1979a,

1984), they estimated a requirement of about 1.168 ´ 1010 kg of

particulates, compared with the panel's estimate of 1010 kg, based upon

Ramaswamy and Kiehl (1985). They then estimated that if 1 percent of the

fuel of aircraft flying above 30,000 feet is emitted as soot, over a 10-year

period the required mass of particulate material would be emitted.

 

However, current commercial aircraft fleets seldom operate above 40,000

feet (12 km), and the lifetimes of particles at the operating altitudes will

be much shorter than 10 years. "

 

" An alternate possibility is simply to lease commercial aircraft to carry

dust to their maximum flight altitude, where they would distribute it. To

make a cost estimate, a simple assumption is made that the same amount of

dust assumed above for the stratosphere would work for the tropopause (the

boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere). The results can be

scaled for other amounts. The comments made above about the possible effect

of dust on stratospheric ozone apply as well to ozone in the low

stratosphere, but not in the troposphere. The altitude of the tropopause

varies with latitude and season of the year. "

 

" In 1987, domestic airlines flew 4,339 million ton-miles of freight and

express, for a total express and freight operating revenue of $4,904 million

(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1988). This gives a cost of slightly more than

$1 per ton-mile for freight. If a dust distribution mission requires the

equivalent of a 500-mile flight (about 1.5 hours), the delivery cost for

dust is $500/t, and ignoring the difference between English and metric tons,

a cost of $0.50/kg of dust. If 1010 kg must be delivered each 83 days,

(provided dust falls out at the same rate as soot), 5 times more than the

1987 total ton-miles will be required. "

 

" The question of whether dedicated aircraft could fly longer distances at

the same effective rate should be investigated. "

 

Changing Cloud Abundance - The Approach

" Independent studies estimated that an approximately 4 percent increase in

the coverage of marine stratocumulus clouds would be sufficient to offset

CO2 doubling (Reck, 1978; Randall et al., 1984). Albrecht (1989) suggests

that the average low-cloud reflectivity could be increased if the abundance

of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) increased due to emissions of SO2. It is

proposed that CCN emissions should be released over the oceans, that the

release should produce an increase in the stratocumulus cloud albedo only,

and that the clouds should remain at the same latitudes over the ocean where

the surface albedo is relatively constant and small. "

 

" Albrecht (1989) estimates that a roughly 30 percent increase in CCN would

be necessary to increase the fractional cloudiness or albedo of marine

stratocumulus clouds by 4 percent. Albrecht's idealized stratocumulus cloud,

which he argues is typical, has a thickness of 375 m, a drizzle rate of 1 mm

per day, and a mean droplet radius of 100 mm, and he assumes that each

droplet is formed by the coalescence of 1000 smaller droplets. The rate at

which the CCN are depleted by his model is 1000/cm3 per day. Consequently,

about 300/cm3 per day (30 percent of 1000) of additional CCN would have to

be discharged per day at the base of the cloud to maintain a 4 percent

increase in cloudiness. This assumes that the perturbed atmosphere would

also remain sufficiently close to saturation in the vicinity of the CCN that

additional cloud cover would be formed every time the number of CCN

increased. "

 

Mass Estimates of Cloud Condensation Nuclei

" With Albrecht's assumption in mind that cloudiness in a typical ocean

region is limited by the small number of CCN, we now extrapolate to the

entire globe. On the average, 31.2 percent of the globe is covered by marine

stratiform clouds (Charlson et al., 1987). If no high-level clouds are

present, the number n of CCN that need to be added per day is 1.8 ´ 1025

CCN/day. The mass of a CCN is equal to 4/3pr3 ´ density, and it is assumed

that the mean radius r is equal to 0.07 ´ 10-4 cm (Charlson et al., 1987).

Because the density of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) is 1.841 g/cm3, the CCN mass is

2.7 ´ 10-15 g. The total weight of H2SO4 to be added per day is 31 ´ 103 t

per day SO2 if all SO2 is converted to H2SO4 CCN.

 

To put this number in perspective, a medium-sized coal-fired U.S. power

plant emits about this much SO2 in a year. Consequently, the equivalent

emissions of 365 U.S. coal-burning power plants, distributed homogeneously,

would be needed to produce sufficient CCN. "

 

 

" Cloud stimulation by provision of cloud condensation nuclei appears to be

a feasible and low-cost option capable of being used to mitigate any

quantity of CO2 equivalent per year. Details of the cloud physics,

verification of the amount of CCN to be added for a particular degree of

mitigation, and the possible acid rain or other effects of adding CCN over

the oceans need to be investigated before such system is put to use. Once a

decision has been made, the system could be mobilized and begin to operate

in a year or so, and mitigation effects would be immediate. If the system

were stopped, the mitigation effect would presumably cease very rapidly,

within days or weeks, as extra CCN were removed by rain and drizzle. "

 

" Several schemes depend on the effect of additional dust compounds in the

stratosphere or very low stratosphere screening out sunlight. Such dust

might be delivered to the stratosphere by various means, including being

fired with large rifles or rockets or being lifted by hydrogen or hot-air

balloons. These possibilities appear feasible, economical, and capable of

mitigating the effect of as much CO2 equivalent per year as we care to pay

for. (Lifting dust, or soot, to the tropopause or the low stratosphere with

aircraft may be limited, at low cost, to the mitigation of 8 to 80 Gt CO2

equivalent per year.) Such systems could probably be put into full effect

within a year or two of a decision to do so, and mitigation effects would

begin immediately. Because dust falls out naturally, if the delivery of dust

were stopped, mitigation effects would cease within about 6 months for dust

(or soot) delivered to the tropopause and within a couple of years for dust

delivered to the

midstratosphere. "

 

" Sunlight screening systems would not have to be put into practice until

shortly before they were needed for mitigation, although research to

understand their effects, as well as design and engineering work, should be

done now so that it will be known whether these technologies are available

if wanted. "

 

" Perhaps one of the surprises of this analysis is the relatively low costs

at which some of the geoengineering options might be implemented. "

 

(end of excerpts)

 

Following is a partial list of those involved in this monumental study:

 

(former Senator) DANIEL J. EVANS

(Chairman), Chairman, Daniel J. Evans & Associates, Seattle, Washington

 

ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C.

 

GEORGE F. CARRIER, T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics,

Emeritus, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge,

Massachusetts

 

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories,

Warren, Michigan

 

THOMAS H. LEE, Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering

and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,

Massachusetts

 

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute,

Washington, D.C.

 

WILLIAM D. NORDHAUS, Professor of Economics, Yale University, New Haven,

Connecticut

 

GORDON H. ORIANS, Professor of Zoology and Director of the Institute for

Environmental Studies, University of Washington, Seattle

 

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National

Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

 

MAURICE STRONG, Secretary General, United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development, New York (resigned from panel February 1990)

 

SIR CRISPIN TICKELL, Warden, Green College, Oxford, England

 

VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Senior Consultant, Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder,

Tallahassee, Florida

 

 

PAUL E. WAGGONER, Distinguished Scientist, The Connecticut Agricultural

Experiment Station, New Haven

 

PETER BREWER, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research

Center, Pacific Grove, California

 

RICHARD N. COOPER, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Cambridge,

Massachusetts

 

ROBERT CRANDALL, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

 

ROBERT EVENSON, Professor of Economics, Yale University, Economic Growth

Center, New Haven, Connecticut

 

DOUGLAS FOY, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation, Boston,

Massachusetts

 

ROBERT A. FROSCH, Vice President, General Motors Research Laboratories,

Warren, Michigan

 

RICHARD GARWIN, Fellow, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown

Heights, New York, and Adjunct Professor of Physics, Columbia University,

New York

 

JOSEPH GLAS, Director, Vice President, and General Manager,

Fluorochemicals Division, E.I. du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware

 

KAI N. LEE, Professor and Director, Center for Environmental Studies,

Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts

 

GREGG MARLAND, Scientist, Environmental Science Division, Oak Ridge

National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 

JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS, Vice President, World Resources Institute,

Washington, D.C.

 

ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Professor of Physics, University of California,

Berkeley, and Director, Center for Building Science, Lawrence Berkeley

Laboratory, Berkeley, California

 

EDWARD S. RUBIN, Professor, Mechanical Engineering and Public Policy, and, Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Carnegie-Mellon

University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

 

MILTON RUSSELL, Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, University of

Tennessee, Knoxville, and Collaborating Scientist, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 

STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER, Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems, National

Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

 

EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Cambridge

 

THOMAS H. STIX, Professor, Department of Astrophysics and Plasma Physics

Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

 

EDITH BROWN WEISS, Professor of Law, Georgetown University, Washington,

D.C. (resigned from panel October 1990)

 

GEORGE F. CARRIER (Chairman), T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied

Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

 

WILFRIED BRUTSAERT, Professor of Hydrology, Civil and Environmental

Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York

 

ROBERT D. CESS, Leading Professor, State University of New York, Stony

Brook

 

HERMAN CHERNOFF, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University, Cambridge,

Massachusetts

 

ROBERT E. DICKINSON, Professor, Institute of Atmospheric Physics,

Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson

 

JOHN IMBRIE, H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography, Department of

Geological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

 

THOMAS B. KARL, Meteorologist, Climate Research and Applications, National

Climate Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

 

MICHAEL C. MacCRACKEN, Physicist and Division Leader, Atmospheric and

Geophysical Sciences, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of

California, Livermore

 

BERRIEN MOORE, Professor and Director, Institute for the Study of Earth,

Oceans, and Space, University of New Hampshire, Durham

 

Staff

ROB COPPOCK, Staff Director

DEBORAH D. STINE, Staff Officer

NANCY A. CROWELL, Administrative Specialist

MARION R. ROBERTS, Administrative Secretary

 

Papers of special interest to Chemtrail Investigators

 

Jay Michaelson 1998 Geoengineering: A climate change Manhattan Project -

Stanford Environmental Law Journal January -

http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two

 

Edward Teller (director emeritus, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory),

" The Planet Needs a Sunscreen " Wall Street Journal, October 17, 1997. -

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv125.html

 

Climate Change 2001: Working Group III: Mitigation - by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm

 

Ramanathan, V. 1988. The greenhouse theory of climate change: A test by an

inadvertent experiment. Science 243:293-299

http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

 

Schimel, D., D. Alves, I. Enting, M. Heimann, F. Joos, D. Raynaud, T.,

Wigley, M. Prather, R. Derwent, D. Ehhalt, P. Fraser, E. Sanheuza, X., Zhou,

P. Jonas, R. Charlson, H. Rodhe, S., Sadasivan, K. P. Shine, Y. Fouquart, V.

Ramaswamy, S. Solomon, J., Srinivasan, D. Albritton, I. Isaksen, M. Lal, and

D. Wuebbles, 1996: Radiative forcing of climate change. In Climate Change

1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

69-131. http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

 

Ramaswamy, V., R. J. Charlson, J. A. Coakley, J. L. Gras, Harshvardhan, G.

Kukla, M. P. McCormick, D. Moller, E. Roeckner, L. L. Stowe, and J. Taylor,

1995: Group report: what are the observed and anticipated meteorological and

climatic responses to aerosol forcing? In Aerosol Forcing of Climate, Vol.

20. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 386-399.

http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

 

Ramaswamy, V., 1988: Aerosol radiative forcing and model responses. In

Aerosols and Climate, A. Deepak Publishing, 349-372

http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.htm

 

Ramaswamy, V., and J. T. Kiehl. 1985. Sensitivities of the radiative

forcing due to large loadings of smoke and dust aerosols. Journal of

Geophysical Research 90(D3):5597-5613.

http://www.gfdl.gov/~gth/netscape/authors/ramaswamy.html

 

Reck, R. A. 1984. Climatic Impact of Jet Engine Distribution of Alumina

(Al2O3): Theoretical Evidence for Moderation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Effects. Report GMR-4740. Warren, Mich.: General Motors Research

Laboratories, and paper presented to the American Geophysical Union, San

Francisco, Calif., December 1984.

 

Hunten, D. M. 1975. Residence times of aerosols and gases in the

stratosphere. Geophysical Research Letters 2(1):26-27.

 

Mueller, A. C., and D. J. Kessler. 1985. The effects of particulates from

solid rocket motors fired in space. Advances in Space Research 5(2):77-86.

 

 

" Get off your ass and take your government back. " ~Rocky Ward