Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: network dude

Interesting. That was from over a year ago... I wonder if they have become more advanced by now?

And do we REALLY get the low-down on what level of advancement something is in, say, the military? How would we REALLY know what stage of development it was or was not in if its "classified?" Well, we wouldn't know one way or another. Therefore it COULD be 10 years ahead of what we are allowed to see in our online research. Or it could be a total bust. It is good to bear in mind that, often by the time something hits mainstream (or even public access journals) in the Medical field, for example, it has been known about and researched for many many years. Same in other forms of tech, especially ones that could have a potential military implication.

I'm just saying that while it is not possible to say this is being done now, it is also not possible to say it ISN'T being done now. Or five years ago. Or ten.

While its good to be clear on what is a reality and what isn't, I think 1) speculation based on what we CAN see of current tech is really ok, and 2) splitting hairs over things we can't possibly know or not know is, well, unproductive.
Controlling the definitions of what is "ok to talk about" is akin to attempting to control what is ok to THINK about - I guess that's where I draw the line between productive and unproductive conversations.

I understand you are just wanting to be clear on "what is" versus "what is conjecture or speculation." Please be aware that it is coming off to me as attempting to control speculation and thus control what people are "allowed" to think or post in a thread. Same with some other posters who are jumping in here. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder...why?

Hmm.

- AB

a reply to: network dude

You do get that this "magic dust" is not yet a reality right? It's like the other SRM ideas.

First of all dude, this LINK I provided when I brought up the topic of smart dust clearly states...

On the Optimal Number of Smart Dust Particles

SMART Dust are small maple leaf like structures. On board are miniature sensors for temperature, moisture and wind profile monitoring. To relay the information they are also equipped with signal emitters. Since these leaves are very light weighted they descend slowly towards the earth’s surface, and as they do, they constantly send out information about temperature, moisture and wind directions. Each leaf costs around US $30, and is released into the atmosphere by a small auto plane

If the tech doesn't exist how come they quote the price? And how come the paper is about how many to use instead of how can we develop a working one?

Second, I'm laying down some basic concepts about how some atmospheric studies are carried out. I haven't yet had a chance to go into the way other materials can be studied in this same manner.

Third, this article ....

LINK

Smart Dust as a concept originated out of a research project by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Research And Development Corporation (RAND) in the early 1990s. We use the military anecdote above because it was these military research groups that first conceptualized Smart Dust but the practical application of the technology can be applied to almost any industry. Dust in the fields monitoring the crops. Dust in the factories monitoring the output of machines. Dust in your body monitoring your entire state of well being. Dust in the forests tracking animal migration patterns, wind and humidity.

The smart dust was originally developed for the military. Every good general knows that discussing strategy with the enemy is a bad idea. Publicly announcing the status of tools like smart dust would be counter productive to it's use in military applications. This stuff has been in development for 15 years at least. I don't think you can appropriately assess the stage these technologies are at by looking at a couple articles online for one day.

Fourth, the RFID technology DOES exist. It's already being used in consumer goods as anti-theft devices and inventory tracking. Those little metal strips that make the door beep when you walk through it. The Fast Trak system for toll roads and bridges also uses similar technology. The only question is how small can they make it.

And finally, I personally like to enjoy my time here when discussing things on ATS. That means exploring possibilities and speculating a bit. The evidence, IMO, is somewhat ambiguous and is open to interpretation. I don't agree with your assessment.

Have a nice day

EDIT:

The SRM technology is fully developed. The only thing that's still being studied is what the negative impacts of it's use might be. Also how effective it might be and ways to improve upon it.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand you are just wanting to be clear on "what is" versus "what is conjecture or speculation." Please be aware that it is coming off to me as attempting to control speculation and thus control what people are "allowed" to think or post in a thread. Same with some other posters who are jumping in here. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder...why?

Hmm.

- AB

I tried to be as clear as I could. I am trying to find out if it's real and being used today. I read the links, I read more links I searched for.

If it's real, and being used, that's great, I'd like to know all about it. But, if it's still in the developmental stage, then it's not something that we can say is actively being used in the SRM field. See, if it is being used, then we are being lied to since all the reports claim that SRM is still just ideas. Geoeingineering as a whole, is not supposed to be going on.

And yes, the speculation on what "could" be happening in the military is always a factor. But until you have cold hard facts, it will remain speculation. (They could have Stargates and Godzilla, but I see no proof)

So I apologize if my questioning sounded like I was being mean. I was and am, just being factual.

a reply to: MagicWand67

I appreciate the information you brought. It is very interesting and like others, I hadn't heard about it before. Now about the tiny dust particles you were talking about. They (the tiny dust size computers) don't appear to exist as of yet. You can purchase a leaf sized one for $30. That's nice.

The RIft technology certainly exists. My only correction to you is that the nano sized computers aren't nano sized yet, based on what I have read. And please, by all means, if you find something that states otherwise, please bring it. I asked several members for that exact info so far.

I can see that the technology is progressing and it may be along very soon. (and yes, the military may already have it, but until somebody publishes a paper on it, we all must agree that we don't know that yet.)

I am sorry you took offence to what I said, but there is enough wild speculation on this whole subject. We need to deal with facts so we don't have the likes of Tanker Enemy teaching the public. My intent was truth only.

a reply to: network dude

If your intent is truth, then why are you trying to distort the facts.?

Nowhere in the paper discussing smart dust for weather does it say "leaf sized".

It's says small maple leaf shaped. The measurements are given in this picture below.



And, regardless of size, if your intent was truth. Then why did you say it is not yet a reality?

Also, if I may ask, why did you try to imply that SRM technology is not yet a reality?

It's as simple as sulfuric acid or other materials chosen to be sufficient being transported and deposited into the upper atmosphere. What makes you think that we are incapable of such abilities?

I would suggest you chose you words more carefully next time if your intent is "truth".

Here, I'll provide you with a couple more papers on these weather motes / smart dust.

Source

Smart Dust is a collection of small sensor equipped leaves which send their information to two or more receivers When a receiver gets a signal from a sensor it can determine the direction from which this signal came By combining the directions from two different receivers we can determine the D locations of all the leaves and thus transform their sensor readings into a D picture of the corresponding parameters temperature moisture etc In this paper we describe an asymptotically optimal algorithm for such reconstruction

Source

This study proposes a wireless remote weather monitoring system based on Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) and wireless sensor network (WSN) technologies comprising sensors for the measurement of temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed and direction, integrated on a single chip.

Moving forward now, a little speculation. Let's suppose we want to take this concept of mapping weather and or wind patterns. But weather motes and MEMS are complicated and could be very expensive. Let's try to simplify it and also lower the cost. We may not be able to be able to recreate all of the capabilities of a weather mote but we could try,

How could we accomplish such a thing? Could we use metals or chemicals that are traceable by radar systems or satellites? Perhaps an easy and readily available method could utilize chaff to track wind patterns. For similar purposes chemicals might be a cheap useful tracking device. Some are better to use than others. Doctors use barium swallow to map patients gastrointestinal tract and stomach. We've seen that NASA scientists have used barium rockets to create clouds in the upper atmosphere. This is because barium creates a contrast to it's surrounding environment when observed through x-rays or other advanced visual aids.

Could we float metals or chemicals in our atmosphere and track them? Yes we can. We already are studying clouds, aerosols and trace gases in our atmosphere. Does it really seem that far fetched that we might make fake clouds containing chemicals or metal particulates so we can study them? No, we've already done that too. Remember the noctilucent cloud experiments.

Remote Sensing

Remote sensing is the acquisition of information about an object or phenomenon without making physical contact with the object and thus in contrast to in situ observation. In modern usage, the term generally refers to the use of aerial sensor technologies to detect and classify objects on Earth (both on the surface, and in the atmosphere and oceans) by means of propagated signals (e.g. electromagnetic radiation). It may be split into active remote sensing, when a signal is first emitted from aircraft or satellites)[1][2][3] or passive (e.g. sunlight) when information is merely recorded.[4]

Clouds and the Earth's Radiation Budget

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) is on-going NASA climatological experiment from Earth orbit.[1] The CERES are scientific satellite instruments, part of the NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS), designed to measure both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation from the top of the atmosphere (TOA) to the Earth's surface. Cloud properties are determined using simultaneous measurements by other EOS instruments such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS).[2] Results from the CERES and other NASA missions, such as the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE),[3] could lead to a better understanding of the role of clouds and the energy cycle in global climate change.[4][5]

CERES

Okay, let's digest this info and maybe even speculate a little bit. What do you all think?

a reply to: MagicWand67


You appear to be disagreeing with tsurfers contention on the size of these items, and in a slightly snarky manner, but to be fair, I'd say that 35mm x 21mm is quite large (relatively speaking) and is in no way anything like 'dust', whether in size or any other characteristic.

Fascinating info all the same. Thanks for this.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I understand you are just wanting to be clear on "what is" versus "what is conjecture or speculation." Please be aware that it is coming off to me as attempting to control speculation and thus control what people are "allowed" to think or post in a thread. Same with some other posters who are jumping in here. All I can do is scratch my head and wonder...why?

Hmm.

- AB

I tried to be as clear as I could. I am trying to find out if it's real and being used today. I read the links, I read more links I searched for.

If it's real, and being used, that's great, I'd like to know all about it. But, if it's still in the developmental stage, then it's not something that we can say is actively being used in the SRM field. See, if it is being used, then we are being lied to since all the reports claim that SRM is still just ideas. Geoeingineering as a whole, is not supposed to be going on.

And yes, the speculation on what "could" be happening in the military is always a factor. But until you have cold hard facts, it will remain speculation. (They could have Stargates and Godzilla, but I see no proof)

So I apologize if my questioning sounded like I was being mean. I was and am, just being factual.

I did not say you were being "mean." That implies pettiness, and a lack of maturity. So, no, that's not what I was indicating. I don't think that of you.

I appreciate "known truth and fact" as much as anyone else, so no problem with that. However, there is a distinct difference between "wild speculation" (godzilla has been weaponized by our military!!! RUN!) and "reasonable speculation BASED on known FACTS." The speculation on this thread has been in the latter category. Would you agree there is a difference? I also have no problem with this, and in fact find it very interesting. See, this is part of science, too, taking what is known and extrapolating logically off of it to a higher application. Without speculation, and imagination, there is no discovery. This, too, has value of its own.

Now, I do hear you on wanting to be clear so you know if we've been told the truth or not. That is what is behind the concept of Conspiracy Theory, after all - have we been told the truth. So, I applaud your desire to determine for yourself what is and is not currently true, even though it is impossible to do so given the nature of the topic.

Perhaps in 10 years if we are still kicking around this site, we'll know for sure. Until then, it is good to both know the current public status of things, and to see forward to the possible, reasonable applications as well. My two cents.

peace,

- AB

a reply to: waynos

I apologize if I come off as being snarky. That wasn't my intention and you both make valid points about the size of these weather MEMS. They are about 1.2 by .8 of an inch. I mainly wanted to introduce to subject of weather mapping. It really is fascinating stuff.

There's actually a few existing threads on ATS about smart dust. So I would really like to refocus the attention towards the concept of weather mapping and some possible methods.

Could we accomplish some aspects of weather mapping by taking advantage of existing systems and multitasking? Specifically cloud seeding, chaff and contrail observations.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I like the way you presented your viewpoint. I feel the same way.

I fully admit that I am speculating and that I have very limited understanding of the items I am presenting.

I am trying to connect the dots between conspiracy theory and factual information that is available to the public.

I have no insider knowledge and my theories and opinions could be wrong.

That being said, I do have a point to all this info about weather mapping.

It may take a little time for me to figure out the best way to convey my point.

But I promise I will get there soon.

Observing clouds and contrails

I want to give a few examples of cloud and atmospheric studies.

TARFOX Tropospheric Aerosol Radiative Forcing Observational eXperiment

ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement

The ARM Climate Research Facility, a DOE scientific user facility, provides the climate research community with strategically located in situ and remote sensing observatories designed to improve the understanding and representation, in climate and earth system models, of clouds and aerosols as well as their interactions and coupling with the Earth’s surface.

CERES

As part of the NASA Langley Science Directorate, the CERES Science, Data Management, Data Processing and Stewardship Teams are devoted to providing valuable Earth Radiation Budget data to the science community. The CERES experiment is one of the highest priority scientific satellite instruments developed for NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS). The first CERES instrument was launched in December of 1997 aboard NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM), CERES instruments are now collecting observations on three separate satellite missions, including the EOS Terra and Aqua observatories and now also on the Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) observatory.


CERES products include both solar-reflected and Earth-emitted radiation from the top of the atmosphere to the Earth's surface. Cloud properties are determined using simultaneous measurements by other EOS and S-NPP instruments such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the Visible and Infrared Sounder (VIRS). Analyses using CERES data, build upon the foundation laid by previous missions such as NASA Langley's Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), leading to a better understanding of the role of clouds and the energy cycle in global climate change.

S'COOL

The S'COOL Project involves students (ages 5-20+) in real science, making and reporting ground truth observations of clouds to assist in the validation of NASA's CERES satellite instruments.

Clouds are an important part of our atmosphere, and scientists are studying how they affect our weather and climate. S'COOL observations provide one more piece of the puzzle.

Participants 1) obtain satellite overpass schedules, 2) observe and report clouds within +/-15 minutes of the satellite's passage, 3) compare and classify the agreement between the ground and satellite views.

Teachers are welcome to register with the S'COOL project to join their students with others around the world who are learning about clouds. Individuals can also contribute observations through the S'COOL Rover area of the website.

Happy cloud observing!

The Contrail Effect

CONTRAIL HIATUS
At least that was the case until September 11, 2001. For the first time since the jet age began, virtually all aircraft were grounded over the United States for three days. Even as they tried like the rest of us to absorb the enormity of the terrorist attacks, climatologists realized they had an unprecedented opportunity to scrutinize individual contrails, and several studies were quickly launched.

One study looked at the aforementioned contrails that grew to cover 7,700 square miles. Those condensation trails arose in the wake of six military aircraft flying between Virginia and Pennsylvania on September 12, 2001. From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langely Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.

These contrails below remind me of that plane in the TARFOX study above.

How aircraft contrails form a cloud





Lots of cloud watchers out there. Understanding the radiative forcing effects of clouds, aerosols and contrails must be pretty important ? That also seems to be a main goal of the Geoengineering scientists these days.

Are we making man-made clouds to study the atmosphere? I wonder if there's a connection to SRM here?

Cloud Seeding

The OP provided some great info. It's been around for a long time. I just want to point out that there's a few different ways to do it.

Source

Methodology
The most common chemicals used for cloud seeding include silver iodide, potassium iodide and dry ice (solid carbon dioxide). Liquid propane, which expands into a gas, has also been used. This can produce ice crystals at higher temperatures than silver iodide. The use of hygroscopic materials, such as table salt, is becoming more popular after promising research.

What are hygroscopic materials?

Source

Hygroscopy is the ability of a substance to attract and hold water molecules from the surrounding environment. This is achieved through either absorption or adsorption with the absorbing or adsorbing material becoming physically changed somewhat, by an increase in volume, stickiness, or other physical characteristic of the material, as water molecules become suspended between the material's molecules in the process....


Hygroscopic substances include cellulose fibers (such as cotton and paper), sugar, caramel, honey, glycerol, ethanol, methanol, diesel fuel, sulfuric acid, methamphetamine, many fertilizer chemicals, many salts (including table salt), and a wide variety of other substances.

Zinc chloride and calcium chloride, as well as potassium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide (and many different salts), are so hygroscopic that they readily dissolve in the water they absorb: this property is called deliquescence. Not only is sulfuric acid hygroscopic in concentrated form but its solutions are hygroscopic down to concentrations of 10 Vol-% or below. A hygroscopic material will tend to become damp and cakey when exposed to moist air (such as the salt inside salt shakers during humid weather).

Sulfuric acid is a hygroscopic material even at a 10% solution and it just so happens that it's also the key ingredient in most of the SRM proposals. Could we test SRM by using sulfuric acid solutions during a cloud seeding experiment?

CHAFF

Human and Environmental Health Issues Related to Use of Radio Frequency Chaff

It is estimated that the U.S. Armed Forces dispense about 500 tons of chaff per year (USAF 2001), with most chaff being released during training exercises within the continental United States.

Weird Weather Radar 'Blob' Tied To 'Chaff' Used In Military Test

When the team looked at the blob using standard weather radar, all indications were it was a strong thunderstorm. Then they turned to so-called dual-polarity technology developed in the last few years by the National Weather Service. This advanced radar allows scientists to scan in both the horizontal and vertical directions.

They found the blob was not nature-made, after all, and was likely so-called military chaff, or reflective particles used to test military radar.

We talked about "smart dust" already. How about "smart chaff"

Smart Chaff

But the problem with existing fiberglass chaff is that it is too big and too easy to detect, asserts Gassman. It can be seen with the naked eye. Its relatively heavy mass pulls it quickly from the sky once fired from an airplane, which gives the enemy the “idea that something on the radar is really not the plane,” he says.

Nanotechnology principles are being applied to develop “smart chaff” that mimics the behavior of pollen, he adds. Researchers have created fibers that are a miniscule 130 nanometers wide. By comparison, a human hair is 100,000 nanometers wide. The fibers are electrically conductive. In the future, Gassman predicts, the fibers will be made 100 times stronger than diamond, with very high electrical and thermal conductivity.

Because of the tiny size of these fibers, an airplane will be able to deploy millions of them, says Gassman. Once airborne, they will float almost weightlessly and will be invisible to the naked eye.

Wow, that's a lot of chaff. I wonder if chaff is being used in SRM studies?


________________________________


BONUS FILES


CASE ORANGE



Owning the Weather in 2025

a reply to: MagicWand67

CASE ORANGE



Owning the Weather in 2025

Sorry but both of those are bogus and debunked.

Here you go concerning case orange...

www.metabunk.org...

And as far as owning the weather you might have wanted to read this...

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the
concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space
force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school
environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the
United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or
events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared
for public release.

csat.au.af.mil...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Oh you may want to hold off staking too much on the Airforce 2025 study. It's a major focus of mine for a thread and you're intentionally misrepresenting what it is and was there.

Yup..They absolutely do have those statements in every part of it, because it is a study and look at projected needs, how to meet them and how to counter threats taken into the future to 2025 from a point of the late 1990's. If they didn't put those statements in, it would look foolish. They even include them in places discussing mundane things like engine availability and potential, F-16 modernization and A-10 development.

In point of fact, it was developed and published by the U.S. Air Force at direction of the civilian leadership of the U.S. Government to examine the needs of the Air Force for the coming 25 years. Weather Warfare is part of that study and it goes into great detail...in NON-FICTION references for nearly all of it, to what has been done already, what has been attempted to various end results and what is/was anticipated.

Some of the long term timelines within the 2025 study show achievements and milestones and major progress for programs predicted for the period of time we're living right now or the times preceding this. In other words, some of the very things they speculated about and we discuss here were predicted to be operational or with viable technology by this point in time, based on that military study.

I'll leave the rest for the thread I'm doing on it (no timeline promises...that's a VERY VERY large study, taken as a whole) and Weather Warfare methods as outlined there are only one small part of a MUCH MUCH larger Service-wide study/projection report. There were equally interesting and cutting edge things (for the late 90's) also covered in it's index and to great depth inside.

That report was attacked severely on another of my threads tho...and so, I've made something of a side project of it as I came to see how far off and wild the attacks actually were for their basis.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Oh you may want to hold off staking too much on the Airforce 2025 study. It's a major focus of mine for a thread and you're intentionally misrepresenting what it is and was there.

So your going to start another thread that discusses this, so why not add to the multitude of threads discussing this?

And how exactly am I misrepresenting anything as it comes straight from the paper itself, so where is the misrepresenting?

Please show me...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well, because I choose to, I can make that choice, and approval of others has nothing to do with it.

To be more realistic for others who may wonder? There is no thread on this site right now for AF 2025, and I did look.

Also, frankly, the attacks and vicious nature of the ridicule to even having mentioned it on a different thread sparked my interest so acutely to focus on it, I've got hours into it at this stage.

There is absolutely nothing covering or talking about the study and what it showed across multiple areas....and it does go well outside and beyond JUST the one chapter you're fixated on for Weather Warfare at the Air Force's level or perspective. It covers NEO object mitigation and interception. Cyber Warfare (with a near scary level of accuracy, given the year it was put together and published) and of course, the use of climate and weather processes for domination of battlefield conditions or denial of the same to the enemy.

So..it's a real mixed bag, and really, too broad to ever fit into an existing thread as a mere supporting item, unless meant strictly to serve as nothing more. It deserves a far greater look in depth, in it's own right...and thanks for your interest in asking. I'm sure you'll be around to comment on that when it eventually gets wrapped up.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

To be more realistic for others who may wonder? There is no thread on this site right now for AF 2025, and I did look.

Really?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is just the start do I need to go further?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Funny, I knew the skeptics wound pounce on those two links. Why do you think I put BONUS above them.

I am fully aware that the 2025 paper was hypothetical.

What does Ken Caldeira have to say about weather warfare?

WATCH THIS VIDEO



The info found in the CASE ORANGE report is based on fact and is 99% accurate. The other 1% is opinion.

You say BOGUS, I say BONUS ..... Let's call the whole thing off.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

To be more realistic for others who may wonder? There is no thread on this site right now for AF 2025, and I did look.

Really?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is just the start do I need to go further?

ATS allows new threads on a topic if someone has a new take on the the topic.

Or were you unaware of that? I know Wrabbit knows the rules here, do you?