Solar Radiation Management, Chemtrails and Climate Mitigation

a reply to: MagicWand67

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?

What do you think is new about something that was published in 1996?

Do you not think this was discussed at length before now?

And what new take do you think he may have on a subject that has been discussed in various threads?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Not to be a spoil sport or anything..but the topic here is about SRM, and while AF 2025 does touch on that in the Weather Warfare section, its certainly a peripheral thing in that context, at best. I replied on this as you brought it into the thread..but I'd love to move back to the topic this is about. Weather Warfare is, as noted, something I'm focused on, but this thread isn't where it's at.

There will be threads on other topics, and trust me, the amusement or interest of any one specific member is of no interest to me when I write my articles. Take my stuff or leave it...that's the nature of a free nation. I offer it for those who want to read more and learn about a thing, while accepting those who hate it generally can't resist jumping all over as well. Of course, I'd love to be surprised once and miss the hate...but life is what it is and everyone gets their freedom to speak a side.

@Magic

On your tracer technology, I've been wondering about something (and forgive me if a link you offered covered it..It's been a chaotic few days for me, to leave it at that). How far has this technology been known to travel in any experimental deployment? Miles? States? more?

I know, for instance, that they've identified grains of wheat on New York City skyscrapers as originating in Kansas fields. Sand from the Chinese Deserts have crossed North America to drift into the Atlantic and actual LIFE has managed to cross from Africa to the Caribbean in what was thought impossible for the longest time (for distance, conditions and UV exposure) but recently confirmed as really occurring.

I've been wondering if they've been able to definitely show HOW far objects caught in the regular circulation cycles can be carried as a routine, and not some one-off fluke?

a reply to: MagicWand67

WATCH THIS VIDEO

What exactly is the video supposed to prove?

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

Do you know much about the Belfort Group?

So where exactly besides the place they wrote chemtrails does this report even discuss chremtrails?

Have you read the report, because if not here you go...

saive.com...

And please show me where chemtrails are discussed?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Not to be a spoil sport or anything..but the topic here is about SRM,

As it has been asked before why does it say chemtrails in the title?

Did you think chemtrails would not be discussed, or is it you just did it to get more of a reaction to your thread you know the more sensational the title the more views you get?

You started the thread with chemtrails in the title so chemtrails will be discussed or are you trying to say what one can discuss in a chemtrail thread.

As much as you want to deny it you brought the chemtrail discussion to this thread.

I replied on this as you brought it into the thread..but I'd love to move back to the topic this is about.

Maybe you should pay a bit better attention as it was Magicwand that brought owning the weather 2025 to this thread.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

As it has been asked before why does it say chemtrails in the title?

It's been asked before as you note. It's been answered as well, as I'll note. Check earlier in the thread as I'm not repeating things to fill space.

Did you think chemtrails would not be discussed, or is it you just did it to get more of a reaction to your thread you know the more sensational the title the more views you get?

Understand something. Chemtrails are your obsession. They aren't mine. Chemtrails form one area of a very broad and diverse topic group and are only one section of my interest. To be honest, the more I watch people fight against any open discussion of them...the more interested I get. You literally MAKE your own opposition by driving people to learn what is so important to fight so hard against.

However, on this thread, it's a passing interest in the larger context of Solar Radiation Management and never intended nor desired to become another thread ...of the many already...as noted..where the debunkers swing for the fences with every person who posts something.

You started the thread with chemtrails in the title so chemtrails will be discussed or are you trying to say what one can discuss in a chemtrail thread.

See above as you're starting to repeat yourself.

As much as you want to deny it you brought the chemtrail discussion to this thread.

See above..again. The question has, for the 3rd time here, been asked and answered earlier in the thread. PLEASE refer to the thread before asking things which have been clearly addressed at earlier points. Being obtuse isn't amusing ...it's just being obtuse.

Maybe you should pay a bit better attention as it was Magicwand that brought owning the weather 2025 to this thread.

Your opinion is duly acknowledged and noted. I should have figured you read every word closely enough to ding anyone on the slightest mistake....and then you wonder openly why people are so exceptionally hostile to you? Sometimes those problems are entirely self generated.

Take care..maybe I'll see you on another thread. Since I have more to come, in fact, I'm certain of it. Until then..

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

On your tracer technology, I've been wondering about something (and forgive me if a link you offered covered it..It's been a chaotic few days for me, to leave it at that). How far has this technology been known to travel in any experimental deployment? Miles? States? more?

That's a very difficult question. One that I'm not qualified to answer. The tracer Sulfur Hexa Fluoride / SF6 is commonly used and has an extremely long lifetime. However, it is considered to be the most potent of all green house gases and it's use is restricted by the Kyoto protocol. Each tracer experiment is specifically designed. The concentration levels vary. Also collecting the transport data depends on the systems used.

There have been experiments using SF6 in the ocean as well as the air. There have been studies where they followed for 20 minutes to an hour. And there have been studies where they follow it for a year. Most of the papers are very technical and almost all of the studies combine the use of computer models to expand their studies. So, for me, it's difficult to decipher. Here's a few examples...

Exotic tracers for atmospheric studies

Tracer materials can be injected into the atmosphere to study transport and dispersion processes and to validate air pollution model calculations. Tracers should be inert, non-toxic and harmless to the environment. Tracers for long-range experiments, where dilution is very great, must be measurable at extremely low concentrations, well below the parts per trillion level. Compounds suitable for long-range tracer work are rare and efforts should be made to reserve them for meteorological studies, barring them from commercial uses which would increase atmospheric background concentrations. The use of these exotic tracers, including certain perfluorocarbons and isotopically labelled methanes, should be coordinated within the meteorological community to minimize interferences and maximize research benefits

Halogenated tracers and studies of deep and
intermediate waters in the Nordic Seas.

When working with released tracers, the method of injection is very much dependent on the aim of the release. In this project, the possibility to follow the tracer for more than a year was requested

CityFlux perfluorocarbon tracer experiments

Atmospheric Tracer Transport

Global Atmospheric Transport Model

Background Paper On Air Force Use Of SF6 In Tracer Gas Applications

Hope this helps.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The video proves that Ken Caldeira, a leading Geoengineer scientist, has had real World discussions with the military about how to control the weather in ways that can be used as a weapon.



I never said anything about chemtrails. What's your obsession with the word chemtrail?



EDIT:

Those 2 bonus papers were the last items I posted. I added them for anyone who wants to read them and make their own judgements based on the info contained within. I made no comments and did not quote anything from either of those papers.

Why are you chosing to focus on those papers? What about the other 3 sections you ignored? Any comment on those topics?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

What do you think is new about something that was published in 1996?

Do you not think this was discussed at length before now?

And what new take do you think he may have on a subject that has been discussed in various threads?

Does the date really matter? Should no one be allowed to post a new thread on UFO's, 9/11, Kennedy assasination or the Moon landing? Every topic deserves the opportunity of a fresh perspective and every member should be allowed to express their opinions. I won't speculate as to what new aspect may be brought forth by Wrabbit's thread. Instead I prefer to wait until he posts it. I usually like to read something before I comment on it.

originally posted by: MagicWand67
a reply to: network dude

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

If I distorted any facts, please let me know what they were. I never intended to distort anything. In fact, my posts were to avoid it. They aren't dust sized, they are bigger. (as far as any proof goes)

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

I stated that the dust sized one's aren't a reality, I even helped you sell the leaf sized one's by mentioning their price again.

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

It's my understanding that all of the ideas that the IPCC and others keep talking about are still in the discussion phase.
I am not one to accept anothers "strong feelings" as any sort of proof. I seem to require hard facts. So if you have any information that is not just opinion that states SRM is actively going on, I really need to know about it so I don't keep claiming that it isn't happening. I want to be trusted as my word is important to me.

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 think we are very, very capable. In fact, I even know of airplanes in our possession that can do this task as is.
But "might be capable" does not equal "they are actively doing it now!"

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.

I try to be as careful as I can as to not mislead any readers. Not a very frequent trait of the chemtrail side.

And thanks for the other info. It really is interesting.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Does the date really matter? Should no one be allowed to post a new thread on UFO's, 9/11, Kennedy assasination or the Moon landing?

Yes it does, because that shows you it has thoroughly been looked at over the years and nothing new has come from it except what conspiracy theorists want to try and make come from it.

As far as being able to post a thread on those topics that is fine because those events have actually happened and questions will probably never be answered, but starting a new thread about a topic that has been discussed god knows how many times isn't going to be anything new, especially if your going to use the paper as the basis of the thread.

a reply to: network dude

If I distorted any facts, please let me know what they were. I never intended to distort anything. In fact, my posts were to avoid it. They aren't dust sized, they are bigger. (as far as any proof goes)

I think there's a big difference between saying the "the tech is not yet a reality" and "they're not using it".

Your original statement implied that the tech doesn't exist. Even if it's still in an R&D phase the tech is a reality.

I also thought I made it clear that the tiny smart dust was the RFID tech and that the weather MEMS were a different type.

EDIT:

My intention was not derail the thread with "smart dust" or as you called it "magic dust" conspiracy theories.

It was to introduce the topic of weather mapping in an interesting way and show the direction in which that field is heading.

I hope we can all move past the topic of how big smart dust is now and get back to the topic of SRM.

a reply to: MagicWand67

Instead I prefer to wait until he posts it. I usually like to read something before I comment on it

Consider your wait over...

csat.au.af.mil...

Enjoy...

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Aliens and UFO's really landed at Roswell? Wow, I didn't know it was real. I thought it was just a weather balloon.

Please provide the evidence.

Regardless of your belief in UFO's I disagree with your opinion on this subject.

Your desire to control where, when and how people discuss this topic is unwanted and unnecessary.

You're entitled to your opinion and everyone reading this thread has heard it.

There's no need to repeat it over and over again........ see it works both ways.

Besides I'm sure that Wrabbit has a better understanding of the rules on ATS than you.

After all he is a staff member. I would suggest you let the staff handle those matters in the future.

If I may place the section shared above in a bit of context, given that it's one piece of an enormous report covering the Air Force and it's environment as a whole into 2025, this is the general summary:

Executive Summary - Air Force 2025 Study

Air Force 2025 Final Report Index

To specifically cite how it was assembled and what it's purpose was to publish, it's analysis and methodology section is important to read over. It includes this.......

In the summer of 1995 the Air Force chief of staff tasked Air University to do a year-long study, 2025,to “generate ideas and concepts on the capabilities the United States will require to possess the dominant air and space forces in the future [, to] detail … new or high-leverage concepts for employing air and space power [, and to] detail … the technologies required to enable the capabilities envisioned.”

To support this goal a 2025 study team conducted an operational analysis to identify high-value system concepts and their enabling technologies in a way that was objective, traceable, and robust. This analysis determined which of the 2025 system concepts show the greatest potential for enhancing future air and space capabilities and which embedded technologies have the highest leverage in making the high-value system concepts a reality

Source: 2025 Operational Analysis (Spacing added to ease reading)

What makes it most interesting are the projections in many sections for what should be seen or should be accomplished on timelines that cross right through the years we're living. Some are recognizable in ways which matter. Some are not. Some are just interesting to consider in not knowing more, either way.

Volume III, Section 15 is what deals with Weather control for battlefield applications.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Consider your wait over...

Uh, I meant I will wait and read the thread before I speculate about what new perspective or opinion Wrabbit has on it.

You seem to be having trouble understanding me. Are you sure you're Okay? Confusion is often a sign of serious health issues maybe you ought to get that checked out.

Best wishes

a reply to: MagicWand67

Uh, I meant I will wait and read the thread before I speculate about what new perspective or opinion Wrabbit has on it.

I just thought you may want to read it and form your own opinion on it, but I see you need to wait because you can't form your own opinion without a little help...understandable.

Confusion is often a sign of serious health issues maybe you ought to get that checked out.

Don't like the discussion so you start the rude comments...nothing new.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Source: 2025 Operational Analysis (Spacing added to ease reading)

What makes it most interesting are the projections in many sections for what should be seen or should be accomplished on timelines that cross right through the years we're living. Some are recognizable in ways which matter. Some are not. Some are just interesting to consider in not knowing more, either way.

Volume III, Section 15 is what deals with Weather control for battlefield applications.

Just because they changed the name from your link it is the same paper that says this....

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

csat.au.af.mil...

You seem to be a smart man, so where in that statement does it even remotely come close to showing that the US government or the Air force for that matter actually uses this as something other than a fictional scenario?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I just thought you may want to read it and form your own opinion on it, but I see you need to wait because you can't form your own opinion without a little help...understandable.

I was actually the first person in this thread to post that document.

It's safe to assume that have already read it.

Don't like the discussion so you start the rude comments...nothing new.

I wasn't being rude. I am genuinely concerned for your safety.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Surfer..I appreciate your interest in that report and the fact I'm writing something that is based around parts of it.

However, this isn't the thread I'm going to discuss or go into it. It isn't talking SRM, it's referring to deliberate and intentional warfare by manipulation of weather to either flood or deprive an area of water, among other things. It's referring to weather in terms of near space and low earth orbit, as well. Weather in terms of raw conditions of the layers involved, more than precipitation in those cases.

I don't know when I'll get around to it, but I'll be happy to drop you a note with a short list of others who have asked, when I get done with it. It may be a week, it may be Christmas. I've learned not to promise times when I've got a lot going and right now isn't the time for it, to be sure ...I'll just say what I've been working and laying threads down in a slow building of foundation to as a theory is well beyond and above the fixation with chemtrails or that level of speculative matter. Again.. Another thread. Another time.

a reply to: MagicWand67

I wasn't being rude. I am genuinely concerned for your safety.

Why I am not afraid of clouds?